Generated August 29, 2026.
Figures quoted in this analysis are from its generation date and may lag the live snapshot table above, which always shows the latest data.
How they differ
MAGS holds exactly seven stocks in equal weight, meaning each position represents roughly 14% of the fund regardless of market capitalization. SPMO, by contrast, holds a much larger universe of S&P 500 names weighted by momentum score, creating exposure to roughly 150–200 holdings with no single stock dominating. The second major difference is structure: MAGS is actively managed (inception April 2023), while SPMO is a passive index tracker dating to October 2015, which explains SPMO's lower expense ratio of 0.13% versus MAGS's 0.30%. Both carry identical beta of 1.33, suggesting similar market sensitivity, though MAGS's concentrated exposure and active management may introduce higher idiosyncratic volatility.
Who each is best for
MAGS: Fits investors with a conviction view on mega-cap tech dominance who are comfortable with concentrated, equal-weight positioning and are willing to accept higher turnover and active management fees for potential alpha relative to cap-weighted indices.
SPMO: Designed for investors seeking systematic large-cap momentum exposure across a diversified set of S&P 500 names, who prefer lower costs and a rules-based approach that automatically rebalances to capture momentum shifts without human discretion.
Key risks to know
- Concentration risk in MAGS. Seven equal-weighted positions means each company represents ~14% of the fund. Weakness in any single holding significantly impacts total return, and overlap among the Magnificent Seven stocks may amplify sector and technology bets.
- Momentum factor decay in SPMO. The momentum factor—favoring recent winners—is cyclical and can underperform dramatically during rotations into value or defensive stocks, especially in rising-rate environments when crowded momentum trades unwind.
- MAGS active management opacity. Because MAGS is actively managed, the fund's exact rebalancing process, hold periods, and decision criteria are not transparent in the way an index-tracking fund's methodology is. Performance divergence from the Magnificent Seven equal-weight benchmark is not guaranteed to be positive.
- NAV tracking in newer MAGS fund. MAGS inception was April 2023, giving it less than 3 years. Early-stage funds sometimes experience tracking inefficiencies or structural adjustments as AUM stabilizes.
- Similar market sensitivity masks different underlying mechanics. Both funds report a beta of 1.33, but MAGS achieves this through concentrated large-cap tech holdings, while SPMO achieves it through broad momentum factor exposure across the S&P 500. A tech downturn may affect MAGS more severely despite identical beta.
Bottom line
MAGS bets on the dominance of seven specific companies through active management; SPMO captures momentum across hundreds of S&P 500 names via a passive index. If you want conviction-level exposure to mega-cap tech and are comfortable with concentration, MAGS offers equal-weight positioning at a slightly higher cost; if you prefer diversified momentum exposure with lower fees and a proven track record, SPMO stands out. Past performance, especially for the newly launched MAGS, does not predict future results.
AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.
