ILF vs. MAGS

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

ILF (iShares Latin American 40 ETF) and MAGS (Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ILF is a Latin America Equities fund tracking the S&P Latin America 40 Index, while MAGS is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill. ILF is passively managed, while MAGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ILF returned 14.49%/yr vs 31.29%/yr for MAGS. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ILF charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for MAGS.

Performance

ILF vs. MAGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF) and Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ILF achieves a 14.45% return, which is significantly higher than MAGS's -1.59% return.

ILF

• 1D: 1.19%
• 1M: 1.16%
• YTD: 14.45%
• 6M: 13.56%
• 1Y: 41.16%
• 3Y*: 14.49%
• 5Y*: 9.30%
• 10Y*: 8.97%

MAGS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -7.06%
• YTD: -1.59%
• 6M: -0.43%
• 1Y: 23.92%
• 3Y*: 31.29%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ILF vs. MAGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ILF iShares Latin American 40 ETF	14.45%	52.65%	-23.11%	28.65%
MAGS Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF	-1.59%	22.99%	63.97%	35.74%

Correlation

The correlation between ILF and MAGS is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.38
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2023	0.37

ILF vs. MAGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ILF	MAGS
Financial Services	33.3%	-
Basic Materials	24.0%	-
Energy	12.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	9.5%	-
Industrials	9.3%	-
Utilities	4.4%	-
Communication Services	4.4%	5.9%
Consumer Cyclical	1.3%	6.9%
Healthcare	1.1%	-
Real Estate	0.8%	-
Technology	-	10.9%

Return for Risk

ILF vs. MAGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ILF

ILF Risk / Return Rank: 61
ILF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
ILF Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
ILF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
ILF Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
ILF Martin Ratio Rank: 57

MAGS

MAGS Risk / Return Rank: 33
MAGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
MAGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
MAGS Omega Ratio Rank: 34
MAGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
MAGS Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

ILF vs. MAGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF) 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.

	ILF	MAGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.83	1.14	+0.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	1.62	+0.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.20	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.92	1.25	+1.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.90	4.21	+4.69

ILF vs. MAGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ILF Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is higher than the MAGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ILF 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

ILF vs. MAGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ILF drawdown since its inception was -67.48%, which is greater than MAGS's maximum drawdown of -29.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILF and MAGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ILF	MAGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.48%	-29.91%	-37.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.94%	-18.62%	+4.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.97%	-29.91%	+5.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.71%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-57.79%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.53%	-8.50%	-0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.92%	-4.72%	-19.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.56%	5.50%	-0.94%

Volatility

ILF vs. MAGS - Volatility Comparison

iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF) has a higher volatility of 7.45% compared to Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS) at 5.86%. This indicates that ILF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MAGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ILF	MAGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.45%	5.86%	+1.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.62%	15.07%	+3.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.30%	20.30%	+2.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.27%	25.97%	-2.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.42%	25.97%	+2.45%

ILF vs. MAGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ILF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than MAGS's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

ILF vs. MAGS - Dividend Comparison

ILF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.84%, more than MAGS's 1.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ILF iShares Latin American 40 ETF	3.84%	4.39%	7.44%	4.61%	12.72%	8.47%	1.88%	3.09%	3.12%	1.80%	1.59%	3.25%
MAGS Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF	1.50%	1.48%	0.81%	0.44%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ILF and MAGS in my portfolio?

ILF and MAGS have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ILF or MAGS?

ILF has higher volatility (7.45%) compared to MAGS (5.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILF dropped -67.48% vs MAGS's -29.91%.

Which ETF is better, ILF or MAGS?

On 3-year performance, MAGS leads with 31.29% vs 14.49% for ILF. On fees, MAGS is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, MAGS has been the lower-risk option at 5.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ILF or MAGS?

Over the 3-year period, MAGS has performed better with a 31.29% return vs 14.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ILF or MAGS?

MAGS is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for ILF.

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

ILF has the higher dividend yield at 3.84%, compared with 1.50% for MAGS.

What is the main difference between ILF and MAGS?

ILF is categorized as Latin America Equities, while MAGS is Technology Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for ILF and 0.29% for MAGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs 1.14), 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.