MAGS vs QQQ: The Magnificent Seven, or the Whole Nasdaq-100?
MAGS holds exactly seven stocks. QQQ holds 101, including those same seven at roughly 40% combined. The question is whether you want the concentration or the breadth.
These two are closer than they look. MAGS (Roundhill Magnificent Seven) holds just seven stocks at roughly equal weight: Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, and Tesla, for 0.29%. QQQ (Invesco Nasdaq-100) holds 101 stocks for 0.20%, but those same seven names already make up roughly 40% of QQQ by weight, because it is market-cap weighted. So QQQ is not a different bet; it is the Magnificent Seven plus 94 other large Nasdaq companies as a cushion. MAGS simply removes that cushion and equal-weights the seven, which makes it far more concentrated and more volatile. The case for MAGS is purity: if your thesis is specifically that these seven companies keep driving the market, MAGS expresses exactly that with no dilution. The case against it is the same fact stated as a risk: seven stocks, one theme, no diversification, at a higher fee than QQQ. If any one of the seven stumbles, MAGS has nowhere to hide, while QQQ absorbs it across a hundred names. For most investors who want large-cap tech growth, QQQ (or the cheaper QQQM at 0.15%) is the more sensible vehicle, and it already gives you heavy Magnificent Seven exposure. MAGS is a high-conviction, concentrated satellite, not a core holding. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Whether the lower-cost fund suits your situation depends on your existing holdings, account type, tax situation, and how you use each fund. This is a cost comparison, not a personalized recommendation.
Both funds trade commission-free at every major brokerage. Where to buy them →
📋 MAGS vs QQQ: Key Facts Side by Side
| Metric | MAGS | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund Name | Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF | Invesco QQQ Trust |
| Issuer | Roundhill | Invesco |
| Tracks Index | Magnificent Seven (equal weight) | Nasdaq-100 |
| Expense Ratio | 0.29% | 0.20% ✓ |
| Cost per $10K/yr | $29.00 | $20.00 |
| AUM | $4.3B | $489.0B |
| Holdings | 7 | 101 |
| Inception | 2023 | 1999 |
| 1-Year Return | +11.93% | +24.35% |
| 3-Year Return | +35.55% | +28.17% |
| 5-Year Return | — | +15.38% |
| Dividend Yield | 1.42% | 0.42% |
| Holdings Overlap | High. All seven of MAGS' holdings are top holdings in QQQ. MAGS is essentially QQQ with everything except the Magnificent Seven removed. — see full overlap → | |
| Avg Bid-Ask Spread | 0.02% | 0.00% |
Expense ratio, AUM, and returns updated Sep 28, 2026 from ETF BFF database. Returns are annualised. Not investment advice.
You just compared two funds. Get the next one figured out for you.
One clear ETF breakdown in your inbox every week: fees, holdings, and the honest verdict. Free.
One email a week · No spam, unsubscribe anytime
📊 MAGS vs QQQ: Annualised Returns
Annualised returns (trailing, price-based). Past performance does not guarantee future results.
🎯 Which Fund Fits Which Investor?
- want tech-heavy large-cap growth exposure via Magnificent Seven (equal weight)
- already use Roundhill and prefer staying within one fund family
- want the lowest fees: saves ~$9/yr per $10K vs MAGS
- want broader diversification (101 holdings vs 7)
- want tech-heavy large-cap growth exposure via Nasdaq-100
💰 What the Fee Difference Actually Costs
Adjust the numbers for your situation. This models each fund's expense ratio compounding against your balance over time.
Assumes a constant annual return reinvested, with each fund's expense ratio deducted yearly. Illustrative only; actual returns vary. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
⚙️ Want the Full Interactive Comparison?
Side-by-side holdings overlap, sector breakdown, and live performance tabs, all in one place.
Run Full MAGS vs QQQ Comparison → Free · No signup · Instant results❓ MAGS vs QQQ: Frequently Asked Questions
New to ETF investing? See answers to the most common ETF questions →