The key differences between ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats® ETF (NOBL +0.09%) and Fidelity High Dividend ETF (FDVV 0.50%) come down to cost, yield, recent performance, and sector exposure. FDVV offers lower fees, a higher payout, and more tech exposure, while NOBL sticks to equal-weighted Dividend Aristocrats® with a defensive tilt.
NOBL and FDVV both target dividend-focused U.S. stocks, but their approaches and results diverge. NOBL tracks a strict list of S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats® with an equal-weighted, sector-capped methodology, while FDVV selects for high dividend yield with sector tilts. This comparison breaks down how each ETF stacks up for cost, returns, risk, and portfolio makeup as of March 2026.
Snapshot (cost & size)
| Metric | NOBL | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | ProShares | Fidelity |
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.15% |
| 1-yr return (as of 2026-03-13) | 8.6% | 16.5% |
| Dividend yield | 1.94% | 2.77% |
| Beta | 0.76 | 0.80 |
| AUM | $12.01 billion | $8.86 billion |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months.
FDVV is more affordable, charging a 0.15% expense ratio compared to NOBL’s 0.35%. It also offers a higher dividend yield of 2.77%, outpacing NOBL’s 1.94%.
Performance & risk comparison
| Metric | NOBL | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (5 y) | -17.92% | -20.17% |
| Growth of $1,000 over 5 years | $1,396 | $1,858 |
What’s inside
FDVV holds 107 stocks and has been operating for 10 years. Its portfolio leans toward technology (25%), financial services (17%), and consumer cyclical (16%) stocks, with top holdings such as Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft. The fund aims for high relative yield using sector tilts, which can introduce more growth-oriented names alongside dividend payers.
NOBL, by contrast, invests in 70 S&P 500 companies with at least 25 consecutive years of dividend growth, capping sector weights at 30%. Its largest allocations are in consumer defensive (25%), industrials (20%), and financial services (12%), featuring Target, Johnson & Johnson, and Chevron, among its top holdings. NOBL’s equal-weighted, rules-based approach keeps it more defensive and less concentrated in growth stocks.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
What this means for investors
Over the last decade, the S&P 500 has delivered total returns of 14.4% annually, outpacing FDVV’s 12.7% clip and NOBL’s 9.8%. Despite this “underperformance” (in quotations because the dividend ETF’s results are actually in line, if not above, the long-term historical returns of the market), FDVV and NOBL are both attractive ETFs for dividend investors in their own ways.
For investors who don’t hold an S&P 500 ETF in their portfolio, FDVV may be an ETF to consider. Its largest holdings are all Magnificent Seven members, helping the index mimic the broader S&P 500 to an extent, as its total returns show. On top of that, its 2.77% dividend yield nearly triples the S&P 500’s 1.06% payout, making it a much more appealing income option than the broader index.
However, if an investor already has exposure to the S&P 500 or is looking to add some stability to their portfolio, NOBL may be the better ETF. While its returns have lagged over the last decade, in what was largely a bull market, NOBL consists of blue chip dividend stocks operating across numerous industries, making it less reliant on mega-cap tech stocks. If you’re tech-averse or think that area of the market is frothy right now, NOBL’s stability could be perfect for you.
Personally, if I had to pick between the two dividend ETFs, I would lean toward NOBL. While I don’t specifically own an S&P 500 ETF, I already have ample exposure to the Magnificent Seven, Nvidia, and the like, so I think NOBL’s counter-positioning in less popular industries right now would benefit my portfolio. While NOBL’s expense ratio of 0.35% is higher than FDVV’s, it isn’t outrageous compared to other dividend ETFs. Meanwhile, NOBL has grown its dividend payments by 8.4% annually over the last decade, offsetting this fee nicely.
