PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QDF vs. NOBL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QDF vs. NOBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QDF achieves a 10.70% return, which is significantly higher than NOBL's 3.51% return. Over the past 10 years, QDF has outperformed NOBL with an annualized return of 12.18%, while NOBL has yielded a comparatively lower 9.51% annualized return.


QDF

1D
-0.56%
1M
4.60%
YTD
10.70%
6M
10.82%
1Y
27.64%
3Y*
19.21%
5Y*
11.90%
10Y*
12.18%

NOBL

1D
-0.17%
1M
1.01%
YTD
3.51%
6M
3.45%
1Y
9.00%
3Y*
8.01%
5Y*
5.03%
10Y*
9.51%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QDF vs. NOBL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QDF
FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund
10.70%16.58%16.95%19.71%-12.13%26.65%4.86%25.71%-7.97%17.42%
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
3.51%6.84%6.72%8.09%-6.52%25.46%8.35%27.39%-3.26%21.02%

Correlation

The correlation between QDF and NOBL is 0.59, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.59

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.70

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.81

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.85

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2013

0.86

Over the past year, the correlation between QDF and NOBL has dropped to 0.59 - well below their long-term average of 0.86, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

QDF vs. NOBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QDF
NOBL

Technology

38.3%
3.6%

Financial Services

13.2%
12.4%

Industrials

8.9%
20.3%

Healthcare

8.3%
9.7%

Consumer Cyclical

6.9%
5.1%

Communication Services

6.8%

-

Consumer Defensive

5.5%
23.5%

Real Estate

5.4%
4.6%

Utilities

2.1%
6.4%

Basic Materials

1.6%
10.9%

Energy

0.9%
3.4%

Technology

QDF
38.3%
NOBL
3.6%

Financial Services

QDF
13.2%
NOBL
12.4%

Industrials

QDF
8.9%
NOBL
20.3%

Healthcare

QDF
8.3%
NOBL
9.7%

Consumer Cyclical

QDF
6.9%
NOBL
5.1%

Communication Services

QDF
6.8%
NOBL

-

Consumer Defensive

QDF
5.5%
NOBL
23.5%

Real Estate

QDF
5.4%
NOBL
4.6%

Utilities

QDF
2.1%
NOBL
6.4%

Basic Materials

QDF
1.6%
NOBL
10.9%

Energy

QDF
0.9%
NOBL
3.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

QDF vs. NOBL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

QDF
QDF Risk / Return Rank: 7373
Overall Rank
QDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
QDF Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
QDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
QDF Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
Martin Ratio Rank

NOBL
NOBL Risk / Return Rank: 2222
Overall Rank
NOBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NOBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
NOBL Omega Ratio Rank: 2020
Omega Ratio Rank
NOBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 2222
Calmar Ratio Rank
NOBL Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

QDF vs. NOBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.


QDFNOBLDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.60

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.14

+0.30

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.52

0.99

+2.52

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.37

2.58

+12.79

QDF vs. NOBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QDF Sharpe Ratio is 2.40, which is higher than the NOBL Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QDF and NOBL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


QDFNOBLDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.40

0.80

+1.60

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.77

0.35

+0.42

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.70

0.57

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.78

0.64

+0.14

Drawdowns

QDF vs. NOBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QDF drawdown since its inception was -36.67%, roughly equal to the maximum NOBL drawdown of -35.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDF and NOBL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QDFNOBLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.67%

-35.43%

-1.24%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.90%

-9.11%

+1.21%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.01%

-15.36%

-2.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.06%

-17.92%

-4.14%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.67%

-35.43%

-1.24%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.56%

-5.99%

+5.43%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.65%

-3.48%

-0.17%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.80%

3.50%

-1.70%

Volatility

QDF vs. NOBL - Volatility Comparison

FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) has a higher volatility of 2.95% compared to ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) at 2.36%. This indicates that QDF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NOBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QDFNOBLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.95%

2.36%

+0.59%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.76%

8.00%

+0.76%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.60%

11.33%

+0.27%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.60%

14.38%

+1.22%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.39%

16.60%

+0.79%

QDF vs. NOBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

QDF has a 0.37% expense ratio, which is higher than NOBL's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

QDF vs. NOBL - Dividend Comparison

QDF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.50%, less than NOBL's 2.12% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
2.12%2.14%2.05%2.09%1.94%1.89%2.14%1.89%2.37%1.74%2.13%2.02%
QDF
FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund
1.50%1.65%1.93%2.19%2.45%1.90%2.38%3.05%4.29%2.70%3.07%3.04%

Frequently Asked Questions


QDF and NOBL have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QDF has higher volatility (2.95%) compared to NOBL (2.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QDF dropped -36.67% vs NOBL's -35.43%.

On 10-year performance, QDF leads with 12.18% vs 9.51% for NOBL. On fees, NOBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, NOBL has been the lower-risk option at 2.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, QDF has performed better with a 12.18% return vs 9.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

NOBL is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.37% for QDF.

NOBL has the higher dividend yield at 2.12%, compared with 1.50% for QDF.

QDF is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while NOBL is Dividend. QDF tracks Northern Trust Quality Dividend Index, while NOBL tracks S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index. They also come from different issuers: FlexShares and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.37% for QDF and 0.35% for NOBL.

QDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 0.80), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QDF and NOBL

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer