NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
NOBL tracks the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index, comprising S&P 500 companies that have increased dividends for at least 25 consecutive years. Equal-weighted methodology provides balanced exposure. Represents the most elite dividend growers in the U.S.
PFM
Invesco Dividend Achievers ETF
PFM tracks the NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index, selecting U.S. companies with at least 10 consecutive years of increasing dividends. Includes all market caps and broader universe than S&P 500. Market-cap weighted with more diversified exposure.
Key Metrics Comparison
| Metric | NOBL | PFM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | 2.15% | 2.45% | PFM (+0.30%) |
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.52% | NOBL (-0.17%) |
| 5-Year Annual Return | 10.2% | 9.8% | NOBL (+0.4%) |
| Number of Holdings | 65 | 246 | PFM (3.8x more) |
| Assets Under Management | $11.8B | $1.4B | NOBL |
| 5-Year Dividend Growth | 8.2% | 7.5% | NOBL (+0.7%) |
| P/E Ratio | 20.2 | 18.8 | PFM (cheaper) |
| Beta vs S&P 500 | 0.75 | 0.85 | NOBL (lower risk) |
Performance Comparison
NOBL Performance
Slightly higher returns with lower yield. Elite 25+ year dividend growers only. Equal-weighted methodology prevents concentration. Lower beta provides excellent downside protection. More defensive sector exposure. Higher quality but narrower.
PFM Performance
Slightly lower returns with higher yield. Broader universe with 10+ year dividend growers. Market-cap weighted creates mega-cap concentration. More diversified across market caps. Includes mid/small-cap exposure for growth potential.
Strategy Analysis
NOBL Approach
Elite dividend aristocrats methodology:
- Tracks S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index
- Minimum 25 consecutive years of dividend increases
- S&P 500 constituents only
- Equal-weighted methodology
- Maximum 2% per holding
- Extreme quality screening
- Defensive sector overweight
- Pure large-cap elite dividend growers
PFM Approach
Broad dividend achievers methodology:
- Tracks NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index
- Minimum 10 consecutive years of dividend increases
- Includes all market caps (large, mid, small)
- Market-cap weighted methodology
- Broader universe than S&P 500
- More diversified exposure
- Growth potential from smaller companies
- Balance of yield and growth
Dividend History Requirements Comparison
The 25-year vs 10-year requirement creates dramatically different portfolios and quality characteristics.
Minimum Dividend History
Average Dividend Growth History
Recessions Survived (Avg)
Dividend Cut Rate (2008)
Index Construction & Methodology Differences
Equal-weight vs market-cap weighting creates different risk/return characteristics and sector exposures.
Weighting Methodology
NOBL: Equal-weighted (all ~1.5%)
PFM: Market-cap weighted (up to 5%+)
Concentration Risk: PFM higher, NOBL lower
Small-cap Exposure: PFM has some, NOBL none
Universe & Eligibility
NOBL Universe: S&P 500 only (~500 stocks)
PFM Universe: All US stocks (3,000+)
Eligible Companies: PFM 3.8x more
Quality Threshold: NOBL much higher
Rebalancing & Turnover
NOBL Rebalancing: Annual (January)
PFM Rebalancing: Semi-annual
Turnover: NOBL ~15%, PFM ~25%
Style Consistency: NOBL more consistent
Sector Allocation Comparison
Sector Weighting Differences
NOBL's equal weighting creates more balanced sector exposure, while PFM's market-cap weighting creates technology and healthcare concentration.
Consumer Staples
Industrials
Technology
Healthcare
Quality & Financial Health Comparison
NOBL's 25-year requirement ensures holdings have survived multiple economic cycles with exceptional financial management.
Financial Metrics (Average)
ROE: NOBL 24% vs PFM 20%
Debt/Equity: NOBL 55% vs PFM 65%
Profit Margin: NOBL 18% vs PFM 15%
Dividend Coverage: NOBL 2.3x vs PFM 1.9x
Dividend Sustainability
Payout Ratio: NOBL 48% vs PFM 55%
Free Cash Flow Yield: NOBL 5.2% vs PFM 4.5%
Dividend Safety Score: NOBL 90 vs PFM 75
Cut Probability: NOBL very low, PFM low
Economic Crisis Performance
2008 Performance: NOBL -38% vs PFM -42%
2020 Performance: NOBL -32% vs PFM -35%
Recovery Speed: NOBL typically faster
Dividend Growth During: NOBL continued, PFM some cuts
Income Analysis
NOBL Income Profile
Lower current yield with stronger dividend growth. Elite quality companies with proven dividend growth through multiple cycles. More sustainable payout ratios. Better inflation protection through consistent growth. Extremely reliable income stream.
PFM Income Profile
Higher current yield with solid growth. Broader diversification includes higher-yielding sectors. Includes mid/small-caps for growth potential. More cyclical exposure but higher yield. Good balance of current income and growth.
Historical Performance & Backtesting
Long-Term Performance Comparison
NOBL has slightly outperformed PFM historically despite lower yield, thanks to better quality and equal-weight methodology benefits.
Since 2013 (NOBL inception)
Maximum Drawdown (2020)
Sharpe Ratio
Dividend Growth
Top Holdings Comparison
NOBL Top Holdings (Equal-Weighted Aristocrats)
Note: Equal-weighted (all ~1.5-2.0%), 65 elite 25+ year growers
PFM Top Holdings (Market-Cap Weighted Achievers)
Note: Market-cap weighted, 246 holdings, 10+ year growers, tech heavy
Investment Recommendation
👑 Choose NOBL If:
- Maximum dividend quality is priority (25+ vs 10+ years)
- Lower beta and better downside protection matter
- Equal-weight diversification appeals to you
- You want pure large-cap elite dividend exposure
- Dividend reliability during crises is critical
- Lower expense ratio is valuable (0.35% vs 0.52%)
- You prefer defensive sector overweight
- Proven long-term dividend growers only
📈 Choose PFM If:
- Higher current yield matters (2.45% vs 2.15%)
- Broader diversification is important (246 vs 65 holdings)
- You want all market cap exposure (including mid/small)
- Technology and growth exposure appeals to you
- Market-cap weighted methodology preferred
- More aggressive dividend growth potential
- You can tolerate slightly higher expense ratio
- Balance of quality and growth is priority
💡 Portfolio Construction Strategy
For maximum quality focus: Use NOBL as core (70-80%) with PFM satellite (20-30%) for yield/diversification boost. For balanced approach: 50% NOBL + 50% PFM provides ~2.30% blended yield with both quality and growth. For growth-focused: Use PFM as core (70-80%) with NOBL satellite (20-30%) for quality anchor. Important: NOBL's 0.35% expense ratio vs PFM's 0.52% provides cost advantage. However, PFM's broader universe and market-cap weighting may offer better growth potential long-term. During defensive markets/recessions, NOBL should outperform. During growth/tech leadership, PFM may outperform. Consider combining with SCHD: 40% SCHD + 30% NOBL + 30% PFM provides ultimate quality/growth/yield balance.