MAGC vs. ISVBF
MAGC (Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF) and ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds. MAGC is actively managed, while ISVBF is passively managed. Over the past year, MAGC returned -15.61% vs 9.14% for ISVBF. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MAGC charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for ISVBF.
Performance
MAGC vs. ISVBF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MAGC achieves a -15.36% return, which is significantly lower than ISVBF's -4.52% return.
MAGC
- 1D
- 4.10%
- 1M
- -2.34%
- YTD
- -15.36%
- 6M
- -17.67%
- 1Y
- -15.61%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ISVBF
- 1D
- 3.77%
- 1M
- -0.15%
- YTD
- -4.52%
- 6M
- -6.41%
- 1Y
- 9.14%
- 3Y*
- 10.70%
- 5Y*
- -5.00%
- 10Y*
- —
MAGC vs. ISVBF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
MAGC Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF | -15.36% | 16.35% | -14.54% |
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -4.52% | 30.64% | 16.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between MAGC and ISVBF is 0.67, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.67 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 4, 2024 | 0.63 |
The correlation between MAGC and ISVBF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
MAGC vs. ISVBF — Risk / Return Rank
MAGC
ISVBF
MAGC vs. ISVBF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGC) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF). 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.
| MAGC | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.59 | 0.30 | -0.89 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.73 | 0.62 | -1.35 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.92 | 1.08 | -0.16 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.44 | 0.48 | -0.91 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.85 | 1.12 | -1.97 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MAGC | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.59 | 0.30 | -0.89 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | -0.17 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.29 | -0.14 | -0.15 |
Drawdowns
MAGC vs. ISVBF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MAGC drawdown since its inception was -32.86%, smaller than the maximum ISVBF drawdown of -53.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MAGC and ISVBF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MAGC | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -32.86% | -53.78% | +20.92% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -32.86% | -19.18% | -13.68% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -23.77% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -53.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -28.88% | -22.61% | -6.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.12% | -32.77% | +17.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.98% | 8.15% | +8.83% |
Volatility
MAGC vs. ISVBF - Volatility Comparison
Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGC) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) have volatilities of 10.63% and 10.63%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MAGC | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.63% | 10.63% | 0.00% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.54% | 26.50% | -6.96% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.65% | 30.50% | -3.85% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 34.36% | 30.18% | +4.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 34.36% | 30.20% | +4.16% |
MAGC vs. ISVBF - Expense Ratio Comparison
MAGC has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than ISVBF's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
MAGC vs. ISVBF - Dividend Comparison
MAGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.85%, while ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
MAGC Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF | 4.85% | 4.10% | 1.02% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MAGC and ISVBF have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ISVBF has higher volatility (10.63%) compared to MAGC (10.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MAGC dropped -32.86% vs ISVBF's -53.78%.
On 1-year performance, ISVBF leads with 9.14% vs -15.61% for MAGC. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, ISVBF has performed better with a 9.14% return vs -15.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for MAGC.
MAGC has the higher dividend yield at 4.85%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.
They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for MAGC and 0.40% for ISVBF.
ISVBF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.30 vs -0.59), 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.
Find the right allocation for MAGC and ISVBF
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer