NOBL vs QDVO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
NOBL and QDVO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. NOBL is ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF, while QDVO is Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF. NOBL is broader by holdings count, with 70 positions versus 49 for QDVO. QDVO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has NOBL ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 47.
What is the main difference between NOBL and QDVO?
NOBL and QDVO have little in common: 5% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | NOBL | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.56% |
| Holdings | 70 | 49 |
| Top-10 concentration | 16.4% | 56.3% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.04% | 10.69% |
| Average volume | 1,093,180 | 238,966 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +13.3% | +1.4% |
| YTD return | +10.5% | +1.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 13.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -14.8% |
| Beta | 0.27 | 0.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | -0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.34 | -0.22 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 47/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 80/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 83/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF vs Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
NOBL leads
NOBL leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from QDVO.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support NOBL, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NOBL over QDVO, 60 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. NOBL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while QDVO holds the stronger risk resilience 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 Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. NOBL lead: Reversed — QDVO led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NOBL now leads by 13.
Compare ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
NOBL vs QDVO: 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 | NOBL | QDVO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.56% | NOBL |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 70 | 49 | NOBL |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 16.4% | 56.3% | NOBL |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.04% | 10.69% | QDVO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -9.1% | -14.8% | NOBL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.9% | 13.7% | 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 NOBL and QDVO 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.
- Momentum80 vs 41NOBL +39
- Quality59 vs 45NOBL +14
- Risk Resilience72 vs 83QDVO +11
- Value40 vs 37Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor NOBL. NOBL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; QDVO keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: 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%)
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
NOBL's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NOBL and QDVO 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.
QDVO (Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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 | NOBL | QDVO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.56% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 70 | 49 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,093,180 | 238,966 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 13.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -14.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | -0.14 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.27 | 0.96 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
NOBL and QDVO share 5.46% of their weighted exposure across 4 common holdings.
65 holdings are unique to NOBL, and 44 holdings are unique to QDVO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QDVO is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 56.29% of the fund, against 16.45% for NOBL (49 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.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | NOBL | QDVO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| KOCoca-Cola Co/The | 1.56% | 2.11% | 1.56% |
| ABBVAbbVie Inc | 1.48% | 2.08% | 1.48% |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 1.42% | 1.56% | 1.42% |
| CATCATERPILLAR INC | 1.34% | 1% | 1% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What NOBL adds that QDVO doesn’t
| Holding | NOBL | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
What QDVO adds that NOBL doesn’t
| Holding | QDVO | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 10.19% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 9.04% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 8.13% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.78% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 5.25% | Not held |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.01% | 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.
NOBL vs QDVO: five-year payout growth
NOBL grew its split-adjusted payout at 5.45% a year over 2020-2025. QDVO began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | NOBL | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $1.113 | $2.878 |
| Peer rank | #16 of 33 | not ranked |
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 | 60 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 40 vs 37 |
| Technicals | NOBL | Price vs 50-day 1.5% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 3.8% vs 0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | QDVO | Risk Resilience 72 vs 83 |
| 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 NOBL and QDVO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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: Reversed — QDVO led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NOBL now leads by 13.
- Today
- NOBL +13
- 60 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- NOBL +14
- 60 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- QDVO +5
- 48 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 11 when QDVO moved ahead of NOBL.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only NOBL
- 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
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QDVO
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
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.
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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1QDVO closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOBL's edge.
- 2QDVO'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 | NOBL | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.3% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.1% | -3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.9% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.2% | 1.8% |
| Year to date | 10.5% | 1.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.3% | 1.4% |
Technicals
NOBL has the stronger structure| Metric | NOBL | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 75.4 | 41.9 |
| ADX (14) | 32.6 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.5% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.8% | 0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.2% | 12% |
Risk
QDVO is the more resilient| Metric | NOBL | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.27 | 0.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | -0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.34 | -0.22 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -14.8% |
| Current drawdown | -2.7% | -4.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 13.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between NOBL and QDVO?
NOBL and QDVO have little in common: 5% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do NOBL and QDVO overlap?
NOBL and QDVO share 5.46% of their weighted exposure across 4 common holdings. 65 holdings are unique to NOBL, and 44 holdings are unique to QDVO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, NOBL or QDVO?
NOBL holds more positions: 70 versus 49 for QDVO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
NOBL has the lower expense ratio, 0.35% a year against 0.56% for QDVO.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QDVO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 10.69% against 2.04% for NOBL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QDVO has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.7% annualized against 11.9% for NOBL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
NOBL fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -9.1% against -14.8% for QDVO.
Compare NOBL and QDVO 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.