MGV vs. OZEM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MGV (Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF) and OZEM (Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MGV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the CRSP US Mega Cap Value Index, while OZEM is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill. MGV is passively managed, while OZEM is actively managed. Over the past year, MGV returned 28.63% vs 22.50% for OZEM. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MGV charges 0.05%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for OZEM.

Performance

MGV vs. OZEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF (MGV) and Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF (OZEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MGV achieves a 14.01% return, which is significantly higher than OZEM's -9.51% return.

MGV

• 1D: 0.77%
• 1M: 4.80%
• YTD: 14.01%
• 6M: 14.90%
• 1Y: 28.63%
• 3Y*: 19.33%
• 5Y*: 12.10%
• 10Y*: 12.84%

OZEM

• 1D: 2.77%
• 1M: -2.00%
• YTD: -9.51%
• 6M: -3.76%
• 1Y: 22.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MGV vs. OZEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MGV Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF	14.01%	15.45%	6.12%
OZEM Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF	-9.51%	41.87%	-3.78%

Correlation

The correlation between MGV and OZEM is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 22, 2024	0.46

MGV vs. OZEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MGV	OZEM
Financial Services	23.9%	0.1%
Healthcare	16.6%	100.0%
Technology	14.2%	-
Industrials	13.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	11.9%	-
Energy	6.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	3.7%	-
Communication Services	3.4%	-
Utilities	2.6%	-
Basic Materials	2.4%	-
Real Estate	1.2%	-

Return for Risk

MGV vs. OZEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MGV

MGV Risk / Return Rank: 87
MGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
MGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
MGV Omega Ratio Rank: 87
MGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
MGV Martin Ratio Rank: 84

OZEM

OZEM Risk / Return Rank: 25
OZEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
OZEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
OZEM Omega Ratio Rank: 26
OZEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
OZEM Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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.

MGV vs. OZEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF (MGV) and Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF (OZEM). 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.

	MGV	OZEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.93	0.92	+2.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.16	1.41	+2.75
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.17	+0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.48	1.18	+3.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.05	2.43	+14.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MGV vs. OZEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MGV Sharpe Ratio is 2.93, which is higher than the OZEM Sharpe Ratio of 0.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MGV and OZEM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MGV	OZEM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.93	0.92	+2.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.79	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.44	+0.04

Drawdowns

MGV vs. OZEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MGV drawdown since its inception was -55.87%, which is greater than OZEM's maximum drawdown of -28.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MGV and OZEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MGV	OZEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.87%	-28.65%	-27.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.42%	-19.16%	+12.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.18%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.54%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.41%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-16.48%	+16.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.69%	-8.92%	+1.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.68%	9.28%	-7.60%

Volatility

MGV vs. OZEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF (MGV) is 2.37%, while Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF (OZEM) has a volatility of 6.35%. This indicates that MGV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than OZEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MGV	OZEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.37%	6.35%	-3.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.49%	17.31%	-9.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.85%	24.60%	-14.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.57%	25.08%	-11.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.33%	25.08%	-8.75%

MGV vs. OZEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MGV has a 0.05% expense ratio, which is lower than OZEM's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

MGV vs. OZEM - Dividend Comparison

MGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.87%, more than OZEM's 1.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
MGV Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF	1.87%	2.04%	2.31%	2.48%	2.45%	2.17%	2.47%	2.69%	2.65%	2.34%	2.53%	2.59%
OZEM Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF	1.33%	1.20%	0.22%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MGV and OZEM in my portfolio?

MGV and OZEM have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MGV or OZEM?

OZEM has higher volatility (6.35%) compared to MGV (2.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MGV dropped -55.87% vs OZEM's -28.65%.

Which ETF is better, MGV or OZEM?

On 1-year performance, MGV leads with 28.63% vs 22.50% for OZEM. On fees, MGV is cheaper at 0.05% per year. On volatility, MGV has been the lower-risk option at 2.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MGV or OZEM?

Over the 1-year period, MGV has performed better with a 28.63% return vs 22.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MGV or OZEM?

MGV is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for OZEM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MGV or OZEM?

MGV has the higher dividend yield at 1.87%, compared with 1.33% for OZEM.

What is the main difference between MGV and OZEM?

MGV is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while OZEM is Health & Biotech Equities. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.05% for MGV and 0.59% for OZEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MGV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.93 vs 0.92), 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.