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

Performance

SMDV vs. NOBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV) 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, SMDV achieves a 18.11% return, which is significantly higher than NOBL's 10.84% return. Over the past 10 years, SMDV has underperformed NOBL with an annualized return of 7.53%, while NOBL has yielded a comparatively higher 9.86% annualized return.


SMDV

1D
-0.18%
1M
0.26%
6M
10.74%
YTD
18.11%
1Y
23.79%
3Y*
10.63%
5Y*
6.99%
10Y*
7.53%
ALL TIME*
8.24%

NOBL

1D
-0.19%
1M
-1.09%
6M
4.89%
YTD
10.84%
1Y
15.41%
3Y*
8.04%
5Y*
6.49%
10Y*
9.86%
ALL TIME*
10.70%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$66.40M$66.46M$60.79M
$4.61M$5.90M$3.47M

SMDV vs. NOBL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SMDV
ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF
18.11%0.26%7.03%8.99%-5.90%18.98%-4.74%17.23%-0.58%4.63%
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
10.84%6.84%6.72%8.09%-6.52%25.46%8.35%27.39%-3.26%21.02%

Correlation

The correlation between SMDV and NOBL is 0.73, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.73

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.77

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.80

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.79

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2015

0.76

The correlation between SMDV and NOBL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

SMDV vs. NOBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
SMDV
NOBL

Financial Services

31.5%
13.2%

Industrials

21.8%
20.3%

Utilities

17.3%
5.7%

Basic Materials

10.5%
9.4%

Real Estate

6.0%
4.6%

Consumer Cyclical

5.1%
5.3%

Consumer Defensive

3.9%
23.3%

Healthcare

1.9%
10.8%

Communication Services

1.1%

-

Technology

0.8%
4.3%

Energy

-

2.9%

Financial Services

SMDV
31.5%
NOBL
13.2%

Industrials

SMDV
21.8%
NOBL
20.3%

Utilities

SMDV
17.3%
NOBL
5.7%

Basic Materials

SMDV
10.5%
NOBL
9.4%

Real Estate

SMDV
6.0%
NOBL
4.6%

Consumer Cyclical

SMDV
5.1%
NOBL
5.3%

Consumer Defensive

SMDV
3.9%
NOBL
23.3%

Healthcare

SMDV
1.9%
NOBL
10.8%

Communication Services

SMDV
1.1%
NOBL

-

Technology

SMDV
0.8%
NOBL
4.3%

Energy

SMDV

-

NOBL
2.9%

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

SMDV vs. NOBL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

SMDV
SMDV Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
SMDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SMDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
SMDV Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
SMDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
SMDV Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
Martin Ratio Rank

NOBL
NOBL Risk / Return Rank: 4747
Overall Rank
NOBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NOBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
NOBL Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
NOBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 4545
Calmar Ratio Rank
NOBL Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

SMDV vs. NOBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


SMDVNOBLDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.40

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.21

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.30

1.62

+0.68

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.27

4.10

+3.17

SMDV vs. NOBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMDV Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is comparable to the NOBL Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMDV 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...

Drawdowns

SMDV vs. NOBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMDV drawdown since its inception was -34.12%, roughly equal to the maximum NOBL drawdown of -35.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMDV and NOBL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SMDVNOBLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.12%

-35.43%

+1.31%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.79%

-9.11%

-0.68%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.23%

-15.36%

-5.87%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.23%

-17.92%

-3.31%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.12%

-35.43%

+1.31%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.36%

-2.31%

-0.05%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.87%

-3.46%

-2.41%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.09%

3.59%

-0.50%

Volatility

SMDV vs. NOBL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV) is 4.40%, while ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) has a volatility of 5.07%. This indicates that SMDV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NOBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SMDVNOBLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.40%

5.07%

-0.67%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.24%

9.11%

+1.13%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.45%

11.92%

+3.53%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.56%

14.48%

+4.08%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.75%

16.63%

+4.12%

SMDV vs. NOBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMDV has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than NOBL's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

SMDV vs. NOBL - Dividend Comparison

SMDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.29%, more than NOBL's 2.04% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
2.04%2.14%2.05%2.09%1.94%1.89%2.14%1.89%2.37%1.74%2.13%2.02%
SMDV
ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF
2.29%2.67%2.68%2.69%2.51%2.02%2.13%2.03%1.97%1.84%1.35%1.81%

Frequently Asked Questions


SMDV and NOBL have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

NOBL has higher volatility (5.07%) compared to SMDV (4.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMDV dropped -34.12% vs NOBL's -35.43%.

On 10-year performance, NOBL leads with 9.86% vs 7.53% for SMDV. On fees, NOBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, SMDV has been the lower-risk option at 4.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, NOBL has performed better with a 9.86% return vs 7.53%. 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 0.40% for SMDV.

SMDV has the higher dividend yield at 2.29%, compared with 2.04% for NOBL.

SMDV is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while NOBL is Dividend. SMDV tracks Russell 2000 Dividend Growth Index, while NOBL tracks S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for SMDV and 0.35% for NOBL.

SMDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.46 vs 1.24), 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 SMDV 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