MARS
Not rated
No published distribution safety rating is available.
ETF Comparison
MARS vs XSPC: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?
A head-to-head comparison of Roundhill Space & Technology ETF and VegaShares SpaceX & Beyond Earth ETF covering yield, cost, risk, and income potential.
Updated November 6, 2026
No track record yet. XSPC launched within the last six months. The forward distribution rate is left blank until a payout is published.
How these figures are calculated: methodology.
Price and total return
Compare the same available dates. Add a ticker or benchmark below; these controls change the chart only. The snapshot and article describe the original comparison.
Interactive history loads here. The snapshot and period returns remain available when chart history cannot be loaded.
Distribution Safety Score
An estimate of distribution reliability, not price or principal safety, a probability, or a guarantee. Score methodology.
XSPC
Not rated
No published distribution safety rating is available.
Score snapshot as of . Method 1.11.
Side-by-side snapshot
| Metric |  MARS |  XSPC |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | Roundhill Space & Technology ETF | VegaShares SpaceX & Beyond Earth ETF |
| Issuer | Roundhill Investments | VegaShares |
| Last Close | $21.43 as of November 6, 2026 | $16.79 as of November 6, 2026 |
| Distribution rate | — | — |
| Distribution Safety Score™ | — | — |
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.75% |
| AUM | $35.7M | $1.75M |
| Distribution frequency | None | None |
| Underlying index | — | — |
| Objective | — | Provide exposure to the fund's underlying index or strategy per issuer materials. |
| Asset class | Equity | Equity |
| Inception date | 03/04/2026 | 06/15/2026 |
| Beta | 2.6714 | — |
— Distribution rate, Safety-Adjusted Yield, last dividend, and ex-dividend date are not yet available because XSPC launched June 2026; these fields will populate after the first distribution.
Total returns
100% reinvested · ex-date convention. Period returns use this fixed assumption, independent of chart settings. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year.
MARS has outpaced XSPC over the year to date, posting a -20.42% total return against -39.49%. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.
| Symbol | YTD cumulative | Since Jun 2026 | Volatility | Sharpe | Sortino | Max drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARS | -20.42% | -41.73% | 50.0% | -2.83 | -3.64 | -41.7% |
| XSPC | -39.49% | -39.49% | 53.4% | -2.50 | -3.13 | -39.5% |
Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date (a modeling convention, not the cash-settlement date), split-adjusted, as of November 5, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year. “Since Jun 2026” measures every fund from June 16, 2026 — the start of shared available history — so all funds share one comparison window. Volatility is the annualized standard deviation of daily total returns over the shared window since Jun 2026. Sharpe and Sortino divide the annualized return in excess of the risk-free rate by, respectively, that volatility and the downside deviation (both over the shared window since Jun 2026) — higher is better. Max drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough total-return decline over the same window — shallower is better.
Not a distribution payer
MARS (Roundhill Space & Technology ETF) has no distribution rate on file and its distribution frequency is None. MARS is not a payer. The blank yield is not a zero yield. XSPC (VegaShares SpaceX & Beyond Earth ETF) has no distribution rate on file and its distribution frequency is None. XSPC is not a payer. The blank yield is not a zero yield.
Visual comparison
Key metrics
Projected income on $10K
Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.
Bottom lineWe won't call this one: XSPC launched June 2026, so there is not yet a track record to compare. Compare the strategy, cost and holdings in the sections above and treat any performance figures for the newer ETF as provisional.
Income calculator
See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.
ETFs57
Total AUM$25.4B
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
Roundhill Investments is known for offering innovative, specialized ETFs that often feature weekly dividend distributions and exposure to trending themes and individual mega-cap stocks. Their lineup spans income-focused strategies, leveraged products, thematic investments in areas like cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence, and weekly-pay funds that appeal to investors seeking frequent distributions. The issuer has built a distinctive niche with products targeting both traditional income seekers and those interested in emerging sectors, offering a diverse range of tickers that go well beyond conventional dividend vehicles.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on MARS.
ETFs7
Total AUM$79.0M
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
VegaShares specializes in options-based and thematic ETFs designed to generate income and capitalize on emerging trends. The issuer's lineup spans income-focused strategies, including covered call funds, alongside thematic offerings that target specific market segments and innovation themes. VegaShares serves investors seeking alternative approaches to traditional equity exposure, with a concentrated portfolio of strategically named funds addressing both income generation and sector-specific growth opportunities.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on XSPC.
Quick verdict
MARS (Roundhill Space & Technology ETF) and XSPC (VegaShares SpaceX & Beyond Earth ETF) are both ETFs, but they take different approaches.
MARS has $35.7M in assets vs $1.75M for XSPC, but XSPC only launched June 2026 — AUM comparisons will become more meaningful as it builds a track record.
Top-holdings overlap
Positions that appear in every fund's top 10. Issuers disclose only the largest weights, so this captures the overlap of the concentrated end of each book — not the full portfolios.
3 shared positions
MARS 39.6% of its top-10 weight
XSPC 28.9% of its top-10 weight
Deep dive
Yield & income
On a $10,000 investment at current distribution rates, MARS has no reported distribution yield yet, so a cash estimate is not available, while XSPC has no reported distribution yield yet, so a cash estimate is not available.
MARS yield—
XSPC yield—
Cost & efficiency
Over 10 years on $10,000, MARS would cost approximately $750 in fees vs $750 for XSPC (simplified, not compounded). Both charge the same expense ratio.
MARS ER0.75%
XSPC ER0.75%
Strategy & risk
MARS is an ETF, while XSPC is an ETF built around a thematic strategy.
MARS beta2.6714
XSPC beta—
Fund details
MARS is managed by Roundhill Investments (launched 03/04/2026) with $35.7M in assets. XSPC is managed by VegaShares (launched 06/15/2026) with $1.75M in assets.
MARS AUM$35.7M
XSPC AUM$1.75M
Frequently asked questions
Which of MARS or XSPC pays more dividend income?
Neither MARS nor XSPC currently reports a distribution yield, so neither is an income fund today. Compare them on holdings, cost, and total return instead.
What is the difference between MARS and XSPC?
MARS (Roundhill Space & Technology ETF) is an ETF, while XSPC (VegaShares SpaceX & Beyond Earth ETF) is an ETF built around a thematic strategy. They are issued by Roundhill Investments and VegaShares respectively.
Can I hold both MARS and XSPC?
Yes. Their disclosed top-10 holdings share only 3 positions, so combining both adds mostly distinct underlying names — see the holdings-overlap section above. Overlap outside the disclosed top 10 can still exist.
Which has lower fees, MARS or XSPC?
MARS and XSPC both charge the same expense ratio of 0.75%, so neither is cheaper on fees — pick based on yield, strategy, or underlying index instead.
How much income does $10,000 in MARS vs XSPC generate?
At current distribution rates, MARS does not pay distributions, so there is no cash income to estimate. XSPC does not pay distributions, so there is no cash income to estimate.
Which has performed better historically, MARS or XSPC?
MARS has outpaced XSPC over the year to date, posting a -20.42% total return against -39.49%. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
More comparisons to explore
People also compare XSPC with
Popular comparisons
MARS vs XSPC — at a glance
Generated October 31, 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.
Overview
MARS and XSPC are both equity ETFs focused on space and technology sectors, but they differ substantially in fund size and market positioning. MARS holds $35.7M in assets and exhibits a beta of 2.6714, indicating pronounced sensitivity to broad market moves. XSPC, a thematic equity ETF with $1.75M in assets, offers space-related exposure through a more recently launched vehicle.
How they differ
The most significant difference is fund size: MARS holds $35.7M, roughly 21 times larger than XSPC's $1.75M. This gap likely reflects MARS's earlier launch and broader institutional adoption; MARS has been available since 03/04/2026, while XSPC launched 06/15/2026. Both charge an identical 0.75% expense ratio. MARS reports a beta of 2.6714, showing roughly 2.7 times the sensitivity to market moves that a broad equity index exhibits—a signal of concentrated or leveraged positioning within the space-tech universe.
Who each is best for
- MARS: Fits investors comfortable with substantial market-linked volatility in pursuit of amplified upside exposure to space and technology themes, and who have sufficient capital to accept the liquidity constraints of a smaller fund.
- XSPC: Designed for investors evaluating thematic space-sector exposure through a newly launched vehicle, who are willing to accept a minimal asset base and are exploring recent entrants to the space-equity category.
Key risks to know
- Concentration and beta risk (MARS): The reported beta of 2.6714 suggests MARS amplifies broad market moves significantly. A 10% market decline would historically correspond to roughly a 26.7% fund decline, creating substantial drawdown risk for investors with shorter time horizons. Bid-ask spreads may widen during periods of market stress or outflows, and rapid asset declines could accelerate operational pressure.
- Sector concentration: Both funds bet heavily on space and technology themes, which remain speculative and capital-intensive. A pullback in venture funding, regulatory pressure on space commerce, or a broader tech selloff would affect both simultaneously.
- Thematic concentration (XSPC): XSPC's explicit thematic focus on space and space-adjacent companies creates tighter sector overlap than a broader technology fund, amplifying single-theme risk.
Bottom line
MARS offers a larger, more established platform for space-tech exposure with a documented market-sensitivity profile; XSPC is a newer, smaller thematic alternative with identical fees but a shorter operating history. If you prioritize fund stability and size, MARS stands out; if you want exposure through a younger thematic vehicle and can tolerate illiquidity, XSPC merits investigation—though both are speculative and carry meaningful concentration risk. Past performance does not predict future results.
AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.
Learn the method
The metrics behind this comparison, explained in the Academy.
These comparisons follow the Dividend Vision methodology.