FNGS vs. MAGS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) and MAGS (Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index, while MAGS is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill. FNGS is passively managed, while MAGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FNGS returned 28.64%/yr vs 28.94%/yr for MAGS. Their correlation of 0.87 means they have usually moved in the same direction. FNGS charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for MAGS.

Performance

FNGS vs. MAGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

FNGS

• 1D: 1.63%
• 1M: 0.59%
• 6M: 12.42%
• YTD: 9.02%
• 1Y: 15.45%
• 3Y*: 28.64%
• 5Y*: 18.98%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 30.45%

MAGS

• 1D: 3.19%
• 1M: 1.32%
• 6M: -0.29%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 1Y: 17.98%
• 3Y*: 28.94%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 35.62%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	$1.57M	$1.92M	$2.40M
MAGS Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF	$254.73M	$303.60M	$278.63M

FNGS vs. MAGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	9.02%	18.64%	51.99%	43.35%
MAGS Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF	0.00%	22.99%	63.97%	35.74%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and MAGS is 0.83, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2023	0.87

The correlation between FNGS and MAGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGS vs. MAGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGS	MAGS
Technology	59.6%	13.0%
Communication Services	30.0%	6.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	6.2%
Financial Services	10.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FNGS vs. MAGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 22
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 21

MAGS

MAGS Risk / Return Rank: 27
MAGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
MAGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
MAGS Omega Ratio Rank: 26
MAGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
MAGS Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

FNGS vs. MAGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS). 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.

	FNGS	MAGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.52	0.64	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.86	1.01	-0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.12	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.51	0.77	-0.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.37	2.26	-0.90

FNGS vs. MAGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.52, which is comparable to the MAGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS and MAGS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FNGS vs. MAGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, which is greater than MAGS's maximum drawdown of -29.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and MAGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGS	MAGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.98%	-29.91%	-19.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.93%	-18.62%	-4.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	-29.91%	+3.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.74%	-7.02%	-0.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.80%	-4.86%	-5.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.61%	6.31%	+2.30%

Volatility

FNGS vs. MAGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) is 5.87%, while Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS) has a volatility of 8.02%. This indicates that FNGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MAGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGS	MAGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.87%	8.02%	-2.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.36%	17.37%	+0.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.86%	22.30%	+0.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.29%	26.09%	+4.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.07%	26.09%	+4.98%

FNGS vs. MAGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than MAGS's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGS vs. MAGS - Dividend Comparison

FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MAGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.48%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MAGS Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF	1.48%	1.48%	0.81%	0.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGS and MAGS in my portfolio?

FNGS and MAGS have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNGS or MAGS?

MAGS has higher volatility (8.02%) compared to FNGS (5.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs MAGS's -29.91%.

Which ETF is better, FNGS or MAGS?

On 3-year performance, MAGS leads with 28.94% vs 28.64% for FNGS. On fees, MAGS is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 5.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGS or MAGS?

Over the 3-year period, MAGS has performed better with a 28.94% return vs 28.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGS or MAGS?

MAGS is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FNGS or MAGS?

MAGS has the higher dividend yield at 1.48%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between FNGS and MAGS?

FNGS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while MAGS is Technology Equities. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 0.30% for MAGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MAGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.64 vs 0.52), 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.