By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agreed that the comparison between SCHB and MAGS is complex and depends on the investor's goals and market conditions. While SCHB offers broad diversification and lower costs, MAGS's equal-weighting methodology can lead to outsized gains in specific sectors. However, the panel also highlighted significant risks associated with MAGS, including tax drag from rebalancing, sequence-of-returns risk, and potential underperformance in a recessionary environment.
Risk: Tax drag from rebalancing and sequence-of-returns risk in MAGS
Opportunity: Potential outsized gains in specific sectors with MAGS's equal-weighting methodology
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
The Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF has outperformed the Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF year to date.
Three Mag 7 stocks have underperformed the Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF for the past year.
The Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF has delivered annualized returns of 14.7% for the past 10 years.
The "Magnificent Seven" have been some of the hottest tech stocks in the world for the past several years. Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla are household-name companies that are widely known for innovation and constantly being in the news.
Although the "Magnificent Seven" stocks have driven a large share of stock market growth in the past few years, they might be losing their luster. An exchange-traded fund (ETF) that tracks the Magnificent Seven, the Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (NYSEMKT: MAGS), has underperformed the S&P 500 index year to date. The past few years' high returns from the Magnificent Seven might look tempting, but there's no guarantee those seven stocks will keep beating the market in the long run.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Instead of buying the Magnificent Seven ETF, many long-term investors might be better off buying a diversified stock market index fund like the Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF (NYSEMKT: SCHB). This low-cost index fund tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Broad Stock Market Index, and it's up 8.4% year to date, which is also outperforming the Magnificent Seven ETF (which is up 5.9%).
Let's look at a few reasons to buy SCHB instead of MAGS.
The Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF is intended to give you exposure to the 2,500 largest publicly traded companies in the U.S. market. As of May 14, the fund owns 2,414 stocks, which include large-cap, mid-cap, and small-cap companies. For the past 10 years, this ETF has delivered annualized returns (by net asset value) of 14.7%. And it charges one of the lowest expense ratios: 0.03%. There are reasons this ETF ranks among the best low-cost index funds.
The top five holdings in the Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF are all major tech names -- in fact, they're all members of the Magnificent Seven:
However, SCHB is broadly diversified. Information technology stocks make up only 31.1% of the portfolio. The fund also holds solid percentages of financial stocks (12.9% of the fund), industrials (10.3%), healthcare (9.9%), consumer discretionary (9.9%), and other sectors.
Owning the Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF doesn't mean you have to stop owning tech stocks. This fund gives you access to some tech stock upside, without putting too many eggs in a tech-loaded basket. And if other parts of the U.S. economy start to outperform tech stocks, this fund will automatically shift and rebalance, as new winners get chosen by the market.
Indeed, the Magnificent Seven tech stocks have strongly outperformed the rest of the market for the past few years. The Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF was established in April 2023, and since then, the fund has delivered annualized returns of 34.2% for almost the past three years (as of March 31).
This ETF does just what its name promises: it holds seven stocks. The Magnificent Seven names in this ETF are rebalanced to an equal weight on a quarterly basis, so each company makes up about 14.2%-14.3% of the fund. The Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF charges an expense ratio of 0.30%, which is not the most expensive fee in the world, but is 10 times the fee charged by the Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF. That fee seems a little high for seven stocks that you could buy yourself with fractional shares in a brokerage account.
Here's another problem with buying the Magnificent Seven ETF: not all seven stocks have been winners lately. For the past year, Alphabet, Nvidia, and Apple have strongly outperformed SCHB, but Tesla, Meta, and Microsoft have underperformed. (Meta and Microsoft have delivered negative returns in the past year.)
If this divergence in performance continues, the Magnificent Seven might not be a winning team anymore. If you're going to take such a concentrated risk on a single-digit number of tech stocks, you might as well just buy individual shares of companies like Alphabet, Apple, and Nvidia, and ignore the rest. Or, if you want to go long tech stocks, consider buying the Invesco QQQ ETF instead of MAGS. Just buying the Nasdaq-100 could give you plenty of tech-driven upside without risking too much on only seven stocks.
Investment fads come and go. Last year's hottest stock trend might become tomorrow's big loser. There's no guarantee that the same seven tech stocks will keep beating the market for long -- in fact, three of them have underperformed for the past year.
Instead of betting too heavily on seven stocks, most long-term investors are likely going to be better off with diversification -- owning thousands of stocks instead of just seven. And that strategy makes the U.S. Broad Market ETF a better buy for most investors than the Magnificent Seven ETF.
Before you buy stock in Schwab Strategic Trust - Schwab U.s. Broad Market ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Schwab Strategic Trust - Schwab U.s. Broad Market ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $483,476! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,362,941!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 998% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 207% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 19, 2026. *
Ben Gran has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Diversification arguments overlook that SCHB's own top holdings remain Mag7 names, so it offers diluted rather than avoided tech exposure."
The article correctly notes SCHB's broad diversification across 2,414 stocks and 0.03% expense ratio versus MAGS's 0.30% fee and seven-stock concentration, with SCHB up 8.4% YTD against MAGS's 5.9%. Yet it downplays how the Mag7 have driven most S&P 500 gains since 2023, with Nvidia alone at 7.9% of SCHB. If AI capex accelerates, equal-weighted MAGS could deliver outsized rebounds in laggards like Tesla or Meta that SCHB's market-cap weighting dilutes. The 14.7% 10-year SCHB return embeds the same tech tailwinds now questioned.
Mag7 dominance could persist for years if AI monetization exceeds expectations, making MAGS's concentration and quarterly rebalancing a feature rather than a bug that captures asymmetric upside SCHB cannot match.
"The article conflates SCHB's 10-year returns (which were turbocharged by Mag 7 outperformance) with proof that broad diversification beats concentration, when the real trade-off is fee drag (0.27%) versus concentration risk on seven stocks with diverging fundamentals."
The article's core thesis—diversification beats concentration—is defensible but obscures a critical flaw in its comparison. SCHB's 14.7% annualized return over 10 years includes massive tailwinds from the exact Mag 7 stocks it warns against (27.6% of top 5 holdings). Strip those out and broad-market returns drop materially. MAGS underperformance YTD is real, but the fund launched April 2023 at peak euphoria; comparing its 34.2% annualized return since inception to SCHB's 10-year average is apples-to-oranges. The article also ignores that SCHB's 0.03% fee advantage (0.27% difference) is economically trivial on a $100k position ($27/year). The real question: does mean reversion in Mag 7 valuations justify the 10x fee premium? Not obviously answered.
If the Magnificent Seven continue to drive 40%+ of S&P 500 returns (as they have since 2020), MAGS's equal-weight rebalancing actually forces you to sell winners and buy laggards quarterly—a tax drag and behavioral penalty that could easily exceed the 0.27% fee difference over a decade.
"Comparing a broad-market index fund to a thematic, equal-weighted tactical ETF is a category error that ignores the distinct role each plays in portfolio construction."
The comparison between SCHB and MAGS is a false dichotomy that ignores the structural purpose of these vehicles. SCHB is a foundational beta play, offering low-cost exposure to the entire U.S. investable universe, while MAGS is a thematic tactical instrument. The article misses the point that MAGS's equal-weighting methodology is specifically designed to mitigate the concentration risk inherent in market-cap-weighted indices like the S&P 500 or QQQ. Investors aren't choosing between these for the same portfolio slot; they are choosing between a 'set-and-forget' core and a high-conviction momentum satellite. Criticizing MAGS for volatility is like criticizing a sports car for not being a minivan—it's performing exactly as its design dictates.
If we are entering a regime of extreme market bifurcation where only the largest AI-infrastructure players can sustain margin expansion, the diversification in SCHB acts as a performance drag rather than a safety net.
"SCHB’s diversification and ultra-low cost make it the more robust long-term core, while MAGS’ outperformance is regime-dependent and may not last."
The article pushes SCHB as a safer, cheaper bet against MAGS, but several caveats deserve emphasis. SCHB’s breadth is real but not as diversified as it sounds: IT about 31% of the fund and its top five holdings are all Magnificent Seven members. The 10-year 14.7% annualized return includes a long tech-led expansion, while MAGS’ 34.2% annualized since April 2023 is a short, regime-driven spike that may revert. The piece glosses over volatility: equal-weighting, quarterly rebalances, and the 0.30% fee on MAGS versus 0.03% on SCHB materially affect outcomes. Regime dependence and rate moves matter for results.
If AI-driven earnings stay strong and the Magnificent Seven keep leading, MAGS could outperform SCHB for longer; the article underplays that tail risk.
"MAGS rebalancing creates hidden long-term costs exceeding the stated fee difference."
Claude downplays the 0.27% fee spread as trivial at $27 yearly on $100k, but MAGS quarterly rebalancing adds trading costs and capital gains distributions that compound over time. This interacts with the volatility ChatGPT highlights, potentially turning MAGS into a higher-cost vehicle than advertised during sector rotations. SCHB avoids these drags entirely as a passive hold.
"Rebalancing tax drag and expense ratio are distinct costs; conflating them obscures MAGS's true all-in friction in taxable accounts."
Grok conflates two separate costs. The 0.27% fee difference is genuinely trivial annually—$270 on $100k. But the rebalancing tax drag he flags is real and separate: quarterly equal-weighting forces MAGS to sell appreciated Mag7 holdings and buy laggards, crystallizing gains in taxable accounts. That's not hidden in the 0.30% expense ratio; it's an additional behavioral tax. The article should quantify this drag, not bury it under fee comparisons.
"The debate over fees is a distraction from the fundamental risk that MAGS lacks the defensive breadth required to survive a broader market contraction."
Claude and Grok are hyper-focusing on expense ratios and rebalancing taxes, which are rounding errors compared to the primary risk: beta-exposure vs. idiosyncratic concentration. If we enter a recessionary environment, SCHB’s 2,414 holdings provide defensive breadth that MAGS’s narrow exposure cannot replicate. The real debate isn't about fees; it's about whether the Magnificent Seven’s earnings growth will continue to decouple from the broader economy. If growth slows, MAGS is a trap, regardless of tax efficiency.
"Quarterly equal-weight rebalancing in MAGS introduces sequence-of-returns risk that can amplify drawdowns, potentially offsetting the 0.27% fee advantage."
Grok is right to flag tax drag from rebalancing; but the bigger, under-appreciated risk is sequence-of-returns: MAGS' quarterly equal-weight forces selling winners and buying laggards, which tends to crystallize gains in up rounds and deepen losses in downturns. In a regime where AI momentum fades, this pro-cyclical rebalancing can amplify drawdowns vs SCHB's buy-and-hold, offsetting the fee advantage. Net takeaway: costs matter, but the rebalancing mechanism matters more in regime shifts.
The panel generally agreed that the comparison between SCHB and MAGS is complex and depends on the investor's goals and market conditions. While SCHB offers broad diversification and lower costs, MAGS's equal-weighting methodology can lead to outsized gains in specific sectors. However, the panel also highlighted significant risks associated with MAGS, including tax drag from rebalancing, sequence-of-returns risk, and potential underperformance in a recessionary environment.
Potential outsized gains in specific sectors with MAGS's equal-weighting methodology
Tax drag from rebalancing and sequence-of-returns risk in MAGS