NOBL vs SCHD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
NOBL and SCHD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. NOBL is ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF, while SCHD is Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF. SCHD is broader by holdings count, with 102 positions versus 70 for NOBL. SCHD is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SCHD ahead on AIQ Score, 68 versus 60.
What is the main difference between NOBL and SCHD?
NOBL and SCHD have little in common: 15% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | NOBL | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 70 | 102 |
| Top-10 concentration | 16.4% | 42% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.04% | 3.04% |
| Average volume | 1,093,180 | 22,407,196 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +13.3% | +29.4% |
| YTD return | +10.5% | +26.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.4% | +9.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 11.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -7.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -17.9% | -16.8% |
| Beta | 0.27 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | 2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.34 | 3.82 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 68/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 80/100 | 79/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 71/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF vs Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD leads
SCHD leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SCHD, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHD over NOBL, 68 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. SCHD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. SCHD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHD today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SCHD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
NOBL vs SCHD: 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 | SCHD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.06% | SCHD |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 70 | 102 | SCHD |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 16.4% | 42% | NOBL |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.04% | 3.04% | SCHD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -17.9% | -16.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.9% | 11.3% | Similar |
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 SCHD 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.
- Quality59 vs 76SCHD +17
- Value40 vs 51SCHD +11
- Momentum80 vs 79Even
- Risk Resilience72 vs 71Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHD. SCHD’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
SCHD's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NOBL and SCHD both carry a full feed there.
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 | SCHD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 70 | 102 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,093,180 | 22,407,196 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 11.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -7.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | 2.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.27 | 0.22 | 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 SCHD share 15.44% of their weighted exposure across 13 common holdings.
56 holdings are unique to NOBL, and 86 holdings are unique to SCHD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SCHD is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 42.01% of the fund, against 16.45% for NOBL (102 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 | SCHD | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| TGTTARGET CORP | 1.64% | 1.78% | 1.64% |
| CVXCHEVRON | 1.61% | 4.28% | 1.61% |
| ADPAUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING INC | 1.6% | 2.69% | 1.6% |
| KOCOCA-COLA | 1.56% | 4.25% | 1.56% |
| ABTABBOTT LABORATORIES | 1.47% | 4.52% | 1.47% |
| PEPPEPSICO | 1.46% | 3.66% | 1.46% |
| PGPROCTER & GAMBLE | 1.42% | 3.89% | 1.42% |
| FASTFASTENAL CO | 1.58% | 1.41% | 1.41% |
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 SCHD doesn’t
| Holding | NOBL | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| IBMINTL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP | 1.72% | Not held |
| ERIEERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY-CL A | 1.69% | 0.15% |
| BDXBECTON DICKINSON AND CO | 1.69% | Not held |
| ROPROPER TECHNOLOGIES INC | 1.68% | Not held |
| MDTMEDTRONIC PLC | 1.61% | Not held |
| GPCGENUINE PARTS CO | 1.61% | Not held |
What SCHD adds that NOBL doesn’t
| Holding | SCHD | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 4.81% | Not held |
| ABTABBOTT LABORATORIES | 4.52% | 1.47% |
| AMGNAMGEN INC | 4.31% | Not held |
| CVXCHEVRON | 4.28% | 1.61% |
| KOCOCA-COLA | 4.25% | 1.56% |
| COPCONOCOPHILLIPS | 4.2% | 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 SCHD: five-year payout growth
SCHD grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.15% a year against NOBL's 5.45%. SCHD never reduced its annual distribution in the window; NOBL did in 1 year.
| Dividend metric | NOBL | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.45% | 9.15% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.853 | $0.676 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.113 | $1.048 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #16 of 33 | #8 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SCHD | 60 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHD | Value 40 vs 51 |
| Technicals | SCHD | Price vs 50-day 1.5% vs 1.9%; vs 200-day 3.8% vs 8.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 72 vs 71 |
| 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 SCHD 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 moderate at 8 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 SCHD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SCHD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SCHD +8
- 60 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHD +8
- 60 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- SCHD +9
- 48 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- SCHD +11
- 55 vs 66
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 2 when SCHD 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.
NOBL and SCHD carry the same 10 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, BB Upper Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
SCHD 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.09%, 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.
- 1NOBL closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHD's edge.
- 2NOBL's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SCHD'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
SCHD leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NOBL | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.3% | 4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.1% | 2.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.9% | 5.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.2% | 12% |
| Year to date | 10.5% | 26.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.3% | 29.4% |
Technicals
SCHD has the stronger structure| Metric | NOBL | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 75.4 | 86 |
| ADX (14) | 32.6 | 30.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.5% | 1.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.8% | 8.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.2% | 12.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | NOBL | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.27 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | 2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.34 | 3.82 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -7.6% |
| Current drawdown | -2.7% | -1.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 11.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between NOBL and SCHD?
NOBL and SCHD have little in common: 15% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do NOBL and SCHD overlap?
NOBL and SCHD share 15.44% of their weighted exposure across 13 common holdings. 56 holdings are unique to NOBL, and 86 holdings are unique to SCHD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, NOBL or SCHD?
SCHD holds more positions: 102 versus 70 for NOBL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHD has the lower expense ratio, 0.06% a year against 0.35% for NOBL.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SCHD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3.04% against 2.04% for NOBL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 11.9% annualized for NOBL and 11.3% for SCHD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -17.9% for NOBL and -16.8% for SCHD.
Compare NOBL and SCHD 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.