IWF vs. MAGS

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and MAGS (Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index, while MAGS is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill. IWF is passively managed, while MAGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWF returned 22.33%/yr vs 31.29%/yr for MAGS. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for MAGS.

Performance

IWF vs. MAGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) 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, IWF achieves a 2.87% return, which is significantly higher than MAGS's -1.59% return.

IWF

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: -2.22%
• YTD: 2.87%
• 6M: 3.39%
• 1Y: 20.40%
• 3Y*: 22.33%
• 5Y*: 13.90%
• 10Y*: 18.17%

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)

IWF vs. MAGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	2.87%	18.33%	33.12%	25.44%
MAGS Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF	-1.59%	22.99%	63.97%	35.74%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and MAGS is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2023	0.91

The correlation between IWF and MAGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWF vs. MAGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWF	MAGS
Technology	53.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	12.7%	6.9%
Communication Services	12.4%	5.9%
Healthcare	6.9%	-
Industrials	5.4%	-
Financial Services	5.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	-
Real Estate	0.4%	-
Energy	0.3%	-
Basic Materials	0.3%	-
Utilities	0.3%	-

Return for Risk

IWF vs. MAGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 33
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 36
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.

IWF vs. MAGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) 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.

	IWF	MAGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.19	1.14	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.66	1.62	+0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.20	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.16	1.25	-0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.83	4.21	-0.37

IWF vs. MAGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is comparable to the MAGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF 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

IWF vs. MAGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than MAGS's maximum drawdown of -29.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and MAGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWF	MAGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.25%	-29.91%	-34.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.27%	-18.62%	+2.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.36%	-29.91%	+6.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.72%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.56%	-8.50%	+2.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.06%	-4.72%	-17.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.93%	5.50%	-0.57%

Volatility

IWF vs. MAGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is 5.36%, while Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS) has a volatility of 5.86%. This indicates that IWF 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

	IWF	MAGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.36%	5.86%	-0.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.40%	15.07%	-2.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.95%	20.30%	-4.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.46%	25.97%	-4.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.00%	25.97%	-4.97%

IWF vs. MAGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than MAGS's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWF vs. MAGS - Dividend Comparison

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than MAGS's 1.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	0.35%	0.36%	0.46%	0.67%	0.91%	0.49%	0.66%	0.99%	1.27%	1.10%	1.43%	1.37%
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 IWF and MAGS in my portfolio?

IWF and MAGS have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWF or MAGS?

MAGS has higher volatility (5.86%) compared to IWF (5.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs MAGS's -29.91%.

Which ETF is better, IWF or MAGS?

On 3-year performance, MAGS leads with 31.29% vs 22.33% for IWF. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IWF has been the lower-risk option at 5.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWF or MAGS?

Over the 3-year period, MAGS has performed better with a 31.29% return vs 22.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWF or MAGS?

IWF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for MAGS.

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

MAGS has the higher dividend yield at 1.50%, compared with 0.35% for IWF.

What is the main difference between IWF and MAGS?

IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while MAGS is Technology Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.29% for MAGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.19 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.