JETS vs. MAGS

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

JETS (U.S. Global Jets ETF) and MAGS (Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - JETS is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the U.S. Global Jets Index, while MAGS is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill. JETS is passively managed, while MAGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, JETS returned 13.75%/yr vs 31.29%/yr for MAGS. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. JETS charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for MAGS.

Performance

JETS vs. MAGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in U.S. Global Jets ETF (JETS) 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, JETS achieves a 5.20% return, which is significantly higher than MAGS's -1.59% return.

JETS

• 1D: 1.93%
• 1M: 13.01%
• YTD: 5.20%
• 6M: 5.27%
• 1Y: 32.79%
• 3Y*: 13.75%
• 5Y*: 2.62%
• 10Y*: 3.62%

MAGS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -7.97%
• YTD: -1.59%
• 6M: -0.43%
• 1Y: 23.09%
• 3Y*: 31.29%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

JETS vs. MAGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
JETS U.S. Global Jets ETF	5.20%	11.64%	33.21%	3.88%
MAGS Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF	-1.59%	22.99%	63.97%	35.74%

Correlation

The correlation between JETS and MAGS is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2023	0.39

JETS vs. MAGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	JETS	MAGS
Industrials	88.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	10.3%
Technology	2.6%	15.3%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	9.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

JETS vs. MAGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

JETS

JETS Risk / Return Rank: 31
JETS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
JETS Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
JETS Omega Ratio Rank: 31
JETS Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
JETS Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

JETS vs. MAGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for U.S. Global Jets ETF (JETS) 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.

	JETS	MAGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.99	1.14	-0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.65	1.62	+0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.20	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.37	1.25	+0.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.47	4.21	-0.73

JETS vs. MAGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JETS Sharpe Ratio is 0.99, which is comparable to the MAGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JETS 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

JETS vs. MAGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JETS drawdown since its inception was -64.92%, which is greater than MAGS's maximum drawdown of -29.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JETS and MAGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	JETS	MAGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.92%	-29.91%	-35.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.13%	-18.62%	-5.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.21%	-29.91%	-5.30%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.84%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-64.92%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.35%	-8.50%	-3.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.16%	-4.72%	-20.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.47%	5.50%	+3.97%

Volatility

JETS vs. MAGS - Volatility Comparison

U.S. Global Jets ETF (JETS) has a higher volatility of 13.04% compared to Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS) at 5.86%. This indicates that JETS'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

	JETS	MAGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.04%	5.86%	+7.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.44%	15.07%	+10.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.42%	20.30%	+13.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.49%	25.97%	+6.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.26%	25.97%	+8.29%

JETS vs. MAGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

JETS has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than MAGS's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

JETS vs. MAGS - Dividend Comparison

JETS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.79%, less than MAGS's 1.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
JETS U.S. Global Jets ETF	0.79%	0.83%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.67%	0.04%	1.24%	0.09%	1.57%	0.58%	0.17%
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 JETS and MAGS in my portfolio?

JETS and MAGS have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JETS or MAGS?

JETS has higher volatility (13.04%) compared to MAGS (5.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JETS dropped -64.92% vs MAGS's -29.91%.

Which ETF is better, JETS or MAGS?

On 3-year performance, MAGS leads with 31.29% vs 13.75% for JETS. 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, JETS or MAGS?

Over the 3-year period, MAGS has performed better with a 31.29% return vs 13.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JETS or MAGS?

MAGS is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for JETS.

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

MAGS has the higher dividend yield at 1.50%, compared with 0.79% for JETS.

What is the main difference between JETS and MAGS?

JETS is categorized as Industrials Equities, while MAGS is Technology Equities. They also come from different issuers: US Global and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for JETS and 0.29% for MAGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MAGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs 0.99), 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.