NOBL holdings

Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing; what the measure does not tell you · every fund in one table · hold it with other funds? X-ray the mix. Pricing: 99.96% at a quoted market price (level 1), 4 issuer countries.

NOBL's largest investment is Nucor Corp at 1.76% of net assets. West Pharmaceutical Services Inc and International Business Machines Corp follow; the three together are 5.19%. Ten companies are 16.58% of the fund; the other 63 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, NOBL behaves like 68.5 holdings against a median of 42.4 — 1.6 times the median. Across 27 quarterly filings NOBL has held roughly steady since 2019-11-30 (56.9 then, 68.5 now).

Each sentence is read from the fund's own SEC filing; the class median is computed across the comparable equity funds on this site. Nothing here is a view on the fund.

Between 2019-11-30 and 2026-05-31, NOBL went from behaving like 56.9 equally weighted positions to 68.5 — 20% more, while its top ten went from 18.87% to 16.58% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.

One row per filed reporting period, newest first, read from EDGAR. Quarterly because that is the public filing cadence. Rows marked * are published but held out of the comparison above; the methodology page says when and why.

Measured against every other fund on this site, from the same filings. Combined effective holdings is how the pair behaves held in equal size.

The 15 largest of 73 positions in NOBL's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: NOBL.csv.gz.

Share of NOBL's own investments by the issuer country the filer reported (incorporation, not revenue). Each country links to every fund that holds it.

Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of NOBL's own filings, 81 months on record. Not computed here and not from a price feed.

Cross-checked against a series computed separately from prices: median difference 0.04 percentage points over 81 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: NOBL.json · all funds.

The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-05-31, $28m was out to 1 borrower, 0.25% of net assets.

Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.26% of net assets, 103.7% of the amount lent. That is a floor on the collateral, not the whole of it — collateral the fund does not hold as a position is not in this filing, so a figure under 100% is not evidence of under-collateralisation. How that figure behaves across all funds. Every quarter NOBL has filed, with each borrower: NOBL.json · all funds.

70 positions became 70: 0 added (0.0% of the fund at the later date), 0 dropped (0.0% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 4.7%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of NOBL compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

100.0% of NOBL is carried at a quoted market price (fair-value level 1). Categories and levels are the filer's, from Form N-PORT; what a low level-1 share does and does not mean is in the measure's page.

Every measured equity fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of NOBL (68.5). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• 004 Expense ratio
• 004 Maximum drawdown
• 004 Standard deviation
• 004 Total return

• SCHD Holdings: 99 Stocks, the Top 10 at 44%, and What It Actually Adds to a VOO Portfolio

  What the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF held on 31 May 2026 from its SEC Form N-PORT filing: all 99 stocks with weights, Qualcomm 6.7%, Texas Instruments 5.9%, UnitedHealth 5.1%; the top ten are 43.6% and the fund behaves like 32 equal holdings. Then the question people are really asking — 92% of SCHD's money sits in companies VOO already owns, so what does holding both change? The overlap arithmetic answers it.

  18 Sept 2026 6 min ETF Analysis

• DGRO vs SCHD: Two Dividend-Growth Approaches — Breadth vs Concentration

  DGRO holds 400+ names with a lower 1.96% yield and a growth lean; SCHD holds roughly 100 with a 3.25% yield and a sharper value-quality tilt — same...

  05 Jul 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• VYM vs SCHD: High Yield vs Dividend Quality — Two Different Bets on Income

  VYM and SCHD both market themselves as dividend funds, but they are built on different screens — VYM ranks the broad market by forward yield; SCHD filters...

  21 Jun 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• DIVZ vs SCHD vs NOBL: Three 'Quality Dividend' Approaches Compared

  Three funds, three different definitions of "quality dividend": SCHD screens on financial strength plus yield, NOBL filters by 25+ years of consecutive...

  01 Jun 2026 11 min ETF Analysis

• NOBL vs. DGRW: Dividend Aristocrats vs. AI-Filtered Quality Dividend Growth

  Over the past five years, DGRW returned 11.8% annualized versus NOBL's 5.7% — a 6.1-point gap, with DGRW showing slightly lower volatility and drawdown....

  13 May 2026 10 min ETF Analysis