Better Dividend ETF: iShares HDV’s High Yields vs. ProShares NOBL’s Dividend Growth
The iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV +1.11%) offers a higher yield and lower expense ratio than the ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL +0.46%), which prioritizes consistent dividend growth over at least 25 consecutive years.
While both funds target dividend-paying equities, they approach the income space from opposite ends of the strategy spectrum. The ProShares fund focuses on the stability of the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats, whereas the iShares fund seeks out established companies with particularly high distributions today. This comparison looks at how these differing philosophies impact sector tilts, expense ratios, and historical risk-adjusted returns.
Snapshot (cost & size)
MetricNOBLHDVIssuerProSharesiSharesShare price$58.32 (as of 2026-10-23)$30.42 (as of 2026-10-23)Expense ratio0.35%0.08%1-yr return (as of 2026-10-23)7.28%17.86%Dividend yield2.0%3.2%Beta0.730.52AUM$11.9 billion$16.3 billion
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from monthly returns over the available fund history (up to five years). The 1-year return represents total return over the trailing 12 months. Dividend yield is the trailing-12-month distribution yield.
The iShares fund is significantly more affordable for long-term holders, with an expense ratio of 0.08% compared to 0.35% for the ProShares fund. Additionally, for those prioritizing current cash flow, the iShares fund offers a notably higher payout, carrying a trailing-12-month dividend yield of 3.2%.
Performance & risk comparison
MetricNOBLHDVMax drawdown (5 yr)(-17.9%)(-15.4%)Growth of $1,000 over 5 years (total return)$1,389$1,863
What’s inside
The iShares Core High Dividend ETF concentrates its portfolio in sectors known for robust cash flows, with exposure leaning heavily toward Consumer Staples at 27%, Energy at 25%, and Health Care at 13%. With 74 holdings, its largest positions include ExxonMobil (XOM +2.16%) at 9.59%, Chevron (CVX +1.75%) at 7.34%, and Abbvie (ABBV +1.41%) at 6.72%. The iShares fund was launched in 2011, and has paid $0.96 per share over the trailing 12 months, which on its recent ~$30.42 share price works out to a 3.2% yield.
The ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF follows a stricter quality screen, tracking an index that requires companies to have at least 25 consecutive years of dividend increases. It holds 71 stocks, primarily in Consumer Defensive at 23%, Industrials at 20%, and Financial Services at 13%. Its largest positions include Factset Research Systems (FDS +2.98%) at 1.89%, Roper Technologies (ROP +3.77%) at 1.82%, and Becton Dickinson and Co (BDX -0.23%) at 1.81%. It was launched in 2013, and has paid $1.17 per share over the trailing 12 months, which on its recent ~$58.32 share price works out to a 2% yield.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
Which looks like the better buy
Generating passive income through dividend stocks is a key means for growing your wealth. The iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) offer two distinct ways to capitalize on this. Personally, I think HDV looks like the better fund, although some investors may prefer NOBL for the stability offered by long-term S&P 500 dividend payers.
HDV is my pick for many reasons. Its one-year return is far superior to NOBL’s, but that’s because its top holdings include oil companies that benefited from soaring fuel prices as a result of the conflict in the Middle East.
The larger factors in HDV’s favor are its low expense ratio, which helps you keep more money in your pocket over time, and a robust dividend yield. The fund leans heavily toward high-cash-flow sectors like Energy and Consumer Staples, providing strong current income, although it must frequently rebalance its portfolio as a result of its screening rules.
NOBL’s focus on companies that have consistently paid dividends for at least 25 years makes it arguably the higher-quality ETF. The fund uses an equal-weight approach, keeping any one company from overly impacting performance. These strengths are offset by a high expense ratio and lower dividend yield.
Source: www.fool.com — article syndicated from the publisher’s feed; all rights remain with the original publisher.