NOBL vs VYM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
NOBL and VYM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. NOBL is ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF, while VYM is Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF. VYM is broader by holdings count, with 613 positions versus 70 for NOBL. VYM is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VYM ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 60.
What is the main difference between NOBL and VYM?
VYM holds 613 positions to NOBL's 70, and 22% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | NOBL | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 70 | 613 |
| Top-10 concentration | 16.4% | 26.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.04% | 2.28% |
| Average volume | 1,093,180 | 1,227,061 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +13.3% | +15.5% |
| YTD return | +10.5% | +12.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.4% | +11.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 10.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -7.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -17.9% | -15.9% |
| Beta | 0.27 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.34 | 1.71 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 80/100 | 67/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 80/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
VYM leads
VYM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VYM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VYM over NOBL, 64 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. VYM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while NOBL holds the stronger momentum profile. VYM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VYM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. VYM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
NOBL vs VYM: 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 | VYM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.04% | VYM |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 70 | 613 | VYM |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 16.4% | 26.2% | NOBL |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.04% | 2.28% | VYM |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -17.9% | -15.9% | VYM |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.9% | 10.1% | VYM |
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 VYM 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 67NOBL +13
- Value40 vs 52VYM +12
- Risk Resilience72 vs 80VYM +8
- Quality59 vs 65VYM +6
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VYM. VYM’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; NOBL keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +4
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VYM'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 VYM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VYM (Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
NOBL (ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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 | VYM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 70 | 613 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,093,180 | 1,227,061 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 10.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -7.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | 1.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.27 | 0.56 | 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 VYM share 21.7% of their weighted exposure across 51 common holdings.
18 holdings are unique to NOBL, and 553 holdings are unique to VYM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VYM is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 26.16% of the fund, against 16.45% for NOBL (613 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 | VYM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMExxonMobil Holdings Corp | 1.56% | 2.63% | 1.56% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 1.51% | 2.51% | 1.51% |
| ABBVAbbVie Inc | 1.48% | 1.8% | 1.48% |
| CVXCHEVRON CORP | 1.61% | 1.48% | 1.48% |
| KOCOCA-COLA CO/THE | 1.56% | 1.38% | 1.38% |
| PGPROCTER & GAMBLE CO/THE | 1.42% | 1.37% | 1.37% |
| CATCaterpillar Inc | 1.34% | 1.5% | 1.34% |
| LINLINDE PLC | 1.33% | 0.9% | 0.9% |
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 VYM doesn’t
| Holding | NOBL | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| IBMINTL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP | 1.72% | 0.85% |
| ERIEERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY-CL A | 1.69% | Not held |
| BDXBECTON DICKINSON AND CO | 1.69% | 0.19% |
| ROPROPER TECHNOLOGIES INC | 1.68% | Not held |
| TGTTARGET CORP | 1.64% | 0.27% |
| MDTMEDTRONIC PLC | 1.61% | 0.45% |
What VYM adds that NOBL doesn’t
| Holding | VYM | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 7.36% | Not held |
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 3.82% | Not held |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc | 1.86% | Not held |
| BACBank of America Corp | 1.67% | Not held |
| UNHUnitedHealth Group Inc | 1.52% | Not held |
| HDHome Depot Inc/The | 1.34% | 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 VYM: five-year payout growth
NOBL grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.45% a year against VYM's 3.79%. VYM never reduced its annual distribution in the window; NOBL did in 1 year.
| Dividend metric | NOBL | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.45% | 3.79% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.853 | $2.906 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.113 | $3.501 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #16 of 33 | #21 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 VYM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VYM | 60 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VYM | Value 40 vs 52 |
| Technicals | NOBL | Price vs 50-day 1.5% vs 0%; vs 200-day 3.8% vs 2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VYM | Risk Resilience 72 vs 80 |
| 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 VYM 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 VYM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VYM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VYM +4
- 60 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VYM +1
- 60 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- VYM +6
- 48 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- VYM +8
- 55 vs 63
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only NOBL
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, 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
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 6 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
VYM 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, 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 Value gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to VYM's edge.
- 2NOBL's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3VYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 4 of 6 windows| Metric | NOBL | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.3% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.1% | 1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.9% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.2% | 4.4% |
| Year to date | 10.5% | 12.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.3% | 15.5% |
Technicals
NOBL has the stronger structure| Metric | NOBL | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 75.4 | 80.5 |
| ADX (14) | 32.6 | 24.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.5% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.8% | 2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.2% | 8.7% |
Risk
VYM is the more resilient| Metric | NOBL | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.27 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.34 | 1.71 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -7.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2.7% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 10.1% |
| 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 VYM?
VYM holds 613 positions to NOBL's 70, and 22% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do NOBL and VYM overlap?
NOBL and VYM share 21.7% of their weighted exposure across 51 common holdings. 18 holdings are unique to NOBL, and 553 holdings are unique to VYM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, NOBL or VYM?
VYM holds more positions: 613 versus 70 for NOBL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VYM has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.35% for NOBL.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VYM, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.28% against 2.04% for NOBL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
NOBL has been more volatile over the past year, at 11.9% annualized against 10.1% for VYM.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VYM fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -15.9% against -17.9% for NOBL.
Compare NOBL and VYM 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.