Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
DIA vs MAGS: how they differ
DIA and MAGS are both equity index funds, and over the year DIA returned more, +15.6% against +14.4%.
SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust and Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF.
| DIA SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust | MAGS Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | State Street | Roundhill |
| What it is | Dow Jones Industrial Average | Magnificent Seven |
| Total return, 1 year | +15.6% | +14.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −1.9 pts | −3.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.30% |
| Holdings | not filed | 9 |
DIA in plain words
DIA is an index equity fund tracking the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +15.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. It sat 3.1% below its high of Aug 5, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
MAGS in plain words
MAGS is an index equity fund tracking the Magnificent Seven. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.30% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 26% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 9 positions, with the top ten at 100.0%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, DIA or MAGS?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DIA returned +15.6% and MAGS returned +14.4%, so DIA returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, DIA against MAGS, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DIA-MAGS Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources