MAGS vs. IWF

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

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

Performance

MAGS vs. IWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). 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 IWF's 2.87% return.

MAGS

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

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%

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

MAGS vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison

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

Correlation

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

MAGS vs. IWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

MAGS vs. IWF — 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

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

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. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). 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	IWF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.14	1.19	-0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.62	1.66	-0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.21	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.25	1.16	+0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.21	3.83	+0.37

MAGS vs. IWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

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

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

Drawdown Indicators

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

Volatility

MAGS vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison

Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS) has a higher volatility of 5.86% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) at 5.36%. This indicates that MAGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

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

MAGS vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

MAGS vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison

MAGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.50%, more than IWF's 0.35% 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 MAGS and IWF in my portfolio?

MAGS and IWF 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, MAGS or IWF?

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

Which ETF is better, MAGS or IWF?

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, MAGS or IWF?

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, MAGS or IWF?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between MAGS and IWF?

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

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.