MAGS vs. FNGO

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

MAGS (Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF) and FNGO (MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - MAGS is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill, while FNGO is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%). MAGS is actively managed, while FNGO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MAGS returned 31.29%/yr vs 49.78%/yr for FNGO. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MAGS charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FNGO.

Performance

MAGS vs. FNGO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS) and MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MAGS achieves a -1.59% return, which is significantly lower than FNGO's 8.91% return.

MAGS

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

FNGO

• 1D: -1.60%
• 1M: -7.03%
• YTD: 8.91%
• 6M: 3.86%
• 1Y: 26.54%
• 3Y*: 49.78%
• 5Y*: 25.62%
• 10Y*: —

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

MAGS vs. FNGO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MAGS Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF	-1.59%	22.99%	63.97%	35.74%
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	8.91%	25.49%	101.65%	89.68%

Correlation

The correlation between MAGS and FNGO is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2023	0.88

The correlation between MAGS and FNGO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

MAGS vs. FNGO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MAGS	FNGO
Technology	15.3%	59.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.3%	11.3%
Communication Services	9.1%	28.8%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

MAGS vs. FNGO — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

FNGO

FNGO Risk / Return Rank: 20
FNGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
FNGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FNGO Omega Ratio Rank: 22
FNGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FNGO Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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.

MAGS vs. FNGO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS) and MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO). 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.

	MAGS	FNGO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.14	0.64	+0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.62	1.10	+0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.13	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.25	0.62	+0.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.21	1.62	+2.59

MAGS vs. FNGO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MAGS Sharpe Ratio is 1.14, which is higher than the FNGO Sharpe Ratio of 0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MAGS and FNGO, 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

MAGS vs. FNGO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MAGS drawdown since its inception was -29.91%, smaller than the maximum FNGO drawdown of -78.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MAGS and FNGO.

Drawdown Indicators

	MAGS	FNGO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.91%	-78.39%	+48.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.62%	-42.73%	+24.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.91%	-47.64%	+17.73%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-78.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.50%	-18.46%	+9.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.72%	-23.87%	+19.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.50%	16.45%	-10.95%

Volatility

MAGS vs. FNGO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS) is 5.86%, while MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) has a volatility of 17.58%. This indicates that MAGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MAGS	FNGO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.86%	17.58%	-11.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.07%	33.63%	-18.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.30%	41.88%	-21.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.97%	60.50%	-34.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.97%	61.61%	-35.64%

MAGS vs. FNGO - Expense Ratio Comparison

MAGS has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGO's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

MAGS vs. FNGO - Dividend Comparison

MAGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.50%, while FNGO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MAGS Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF	1.50%	1.48%	0.81%	0.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MAGS and FNGO in my portfolio?

MAGS and FNGO have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MAGS or FNGO?

FNGO has higher volatility (17.58%) compared to MAGS (5.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MAGS dropped -29.91% vs FNGO's -78.39%.

Which ETF is better, MAGS or FNGO?

On 3-year performance, FNGO leads with 49.78% vs 31.29% for MAGS. 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, MAGS or FNGO?

Over the 3-year period, FNGO has performed better with a 49.78% return vs 31.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MAGS or FNGO?

MAGS is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FNGO.

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

MAGS has the higher dividend yield at 1.50%, compared with 0.00% for FNGO.

What is the main difference between MAGS and FNGO?

MAGS is categorized as Technology Equities, while FNGO is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and Bank of Montreal. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for MAGS and 0.95% for FNGO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MAGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs 0.64), 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.