KBWY vs NOBL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
KBWY and NOBL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. KBWY is Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF, while NOBL is ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF. NOBL is broader by holdings count, with 70 positions versus 31 for KBWY. KBWY is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has NOBL ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 46.
What is the main difference between KBWY and NOBL?
KBWY and NOBL have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | KBWY | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 31 | 70 |
| Top-10 concentration | 46.5% | 16.4% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 9.08% | 2.04% |
| Average volume | 207,889 | 1,093,180 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +5.3% | +13.3% |
| YTD return | +5.2% | +10.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +0.2% | +6.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 11.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -17.4% | -9.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.3% | -17.9% |
| Beta | 0.38 | 0.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.24 | 1.34 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 46/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 35/100 | 80/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 74/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF vs ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
NOBL leads
NOBL leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 4 evidence groups support NOBL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF
ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NOBL over KBWY, 60 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. NOBL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while KBWY holds the stronger value profile. NOBL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor NOBL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. NOBL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF and ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
KBWY vs NOBL: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | KBWY | NOBL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.35% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 31 | 70 | NOBL |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 46.5% | 16.4% | NOBL |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 9.08% | 2.04% | KBWY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.3% | -17.9% | NOBL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 16.7% | 11.9% | NOBL |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare KBWY and NOBL against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum35 vs 80NOBL +45
- Quality42 vs 59NOBL +17
- Value46 vs 40KBWY +6
- Risk Resilience74 vs 72Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor NOBL. NOBL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; KBWY keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (3.0%)
NOBL's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KBWY and NOBL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NOBL (ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
KBWY (Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 20.4% against 12.2%.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | KBWY | NOBL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 31 | 70 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 207,889 | 1,093,180 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 11.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -17.4% | -9.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | 0.71 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.38 | 0.27 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
How much of the same holdings they own
KBWY and NOBL share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
28 holdings are unique to KBWY, and 69 holdings are unique to NOBL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
KBWY is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.47% of the fund, against 16.45% for NOBL (31 holdings vs 70). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What KBWY adds that NOBL doesn’t
| Holding | KBWY | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| IIPRInnovative Industrial Properties Inc | 6.29% | Not held |
| MRPMillrose Properties Inc | 5.66% | Not held |
| PKPark Hotels & Resorts Inc | 5.21% | Not held |
| GOODGladstone Commercial Corp | 4.83% | Not held |
| CHCTCommunity Healthcare Trust Inc | 4.74% | Not held |
| HIWHighwoods Properties Inc | 4.47% | Not held |
What NOBL adds that KBWY doesn’t
| Holding | NOBL | KBWY |
|---|---|---|
| IBMINTL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP | 1.72% | Not held |
| ERIEERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY-CL A | 1.69% | Not held |
| BDXBECTON DICKINSON AND CO | 1.69% | Not held |
| ROPROPER TECHNOLOGIES INC | 1.68% | Not held |
| TGTTARGET CORP | 1.64% | Not held |
| MDTMEDTRONIC PLC | 1.61% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
KBWY vs NOBL: five-year payout growth
NOBL grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.45% a year against KBWY's -6.75%.
| Dividend metric | KBWY | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | -6.75% | 5.45% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.143 | $0.853 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.511 | $1.113 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #132 of 138 | #16 of 33 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor NOBL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NOBL | 46 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | KBWY | Value 46 vs 40 |
| Technicals | NOBL | Price vs 50-day -7.4% vs 1.5%; vs 200-day -4.8% vs 3.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 74 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KBWY and NOBL and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on NOBL.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20NOBL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NOBL +14
- 46 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- NOBL +15
- 45 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- NOBL +5
- 43 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only NOBL
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.04%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (3.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
NOBL leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.41%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.03%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1KBWY closes the Momentum gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOBL's edge.
- 2KBWY's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3NOBL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
NOBL leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | KBWY | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | 3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.7% | 3.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.2% | 1.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.4% | 6.2% |
| Year to date | 5.2% | 10.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.3% | 13.3% |
Technicals
NOBL has the stronger structure| Metric | KBWY | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.4 | 75.4 |
| ADX (14) | 53.1 | 32.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.4% | 1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.8% | 3.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.4% | 12.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | KBWY | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.38 | 0.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.24 | 1.34 |
| Max drawdown | -17.4% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -15.4% | -2.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 11.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between KBWY and NOBL?
KBWY and NOBL have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do KBWY and NOBL overlap?
KBWY and NOBL share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 28 holdings are unique to KBWY, and 69 holdings are unique to NOBL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, KBWY or NOBL?
NOBL holds more positions: 70 versus 31 for KBWY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.35% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
KBWY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 9.08% against 2.04% for NOBL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
KBWY has been more volatile over the past year, at 16.7% annualized against 11.9% for NOBL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
NOBL fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17.9% against -32.3% for KBWY.
Compare KBWY and NOBL with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.