Skip to content
etf.net

CXSE vs MAGC

WisdomTree China ex-State-Owned Enterprises Fund

CXSEANasdaq

Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF

MAGCCCboe

Overlap

2.1%by weight

Expense ratio

CXSE −0.28pt a year

CXSE0.32%MAGC0.60%

Avg volume · 30D

CXSE 5.6×the volume

CXSE37.2KMAGC6.65K

CXSE vs MAGC Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Nov 2, 2026

−24.1%CXSE−32.1%MAGC

Oct 31, 2025 to Nov 2, 2026. CXSE −24.1%. MAGC −32.1%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.−10%0%Oct 2025May 2026Nov 2026
Expense ratio
CXSE 0.32%, better
MAGC 0.60%
Fund size
CXSE $372M
MAGC $12M
1Y total return
CXSE −24.1%, better
MAGC −32.1%
Yield (12M)
CXSE 2.20%
MAGC 5.57%, better
Holdings
CXSE 241
MAGC 16
Avg volume (30D)
CXSE 37.2K sh, better
MAGC 6.65K sh
NAV per share
CXSE $31.37
MAGC $17.53
52W range

ETF.net Grade

CXSE: Cost 97, Risk 48, Mission 100, Tradability 63, Holdings 74, Durability 79. MAGC: Cost 67, Risk 21, Mission 50, Tradability 53, Holdings 16, Durability 36.
Pillar letters and Scores for CXSE, MAGC, with each pillar’s weight
PillarCXSEMAGC
Cost30% weightA97HigherB67
Mission25% weightA100HigherC50
Risk15% weightC48HigherF21
Tradability15% weightB63HigherC53
Holdings10% weightA74HigherF16
Durability5% weightA79HigherD36

Rank among China funds

How we build Categories ›
Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. CXSE and MAGC are both graded against the same 28 China funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

China⁠

Category · 28 funds
See all 28 ›

CXSE ranks 1st and MAGC 17th of 28 funds in the China Category.

  1. Rank 1ACXSEWisdomTree China ex-State-Owned Enterprises FundScore 81
  2. Rank 1AFLCHFranklin FTSE China ETFScore 81
  3. Rank 15CPGJInvesco Golden Dragon China ETFScore 48
  4. Rank 17CMAGCRoundhill China Magnificent Seven ETFScore 47
  5. Rank 18CCHIQGlobal X MSCI China Consumer Discretionary ETFScore 46

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

CXSEAWisdomTree China ex-State-Owned Enterprises Fund

MAGCCRoundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF

In short

CXSE CXSE tracks an index that screens state-owned enterprises out of China, leaving the privately run companies. A tilt toward entrepreneurs rather than Beijing's balance sheet, at a fee well under the typical China fund.

MAGC One ticker, seven of China's biggest tech and EV names, equal weighted and rebalanced quarterly. Roundhill's China answer to its own Magnificent Seven fund, and it charges 0.60%.

Stated mandate

CXSE The Fund seeks to track, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the WisdomTree China ex-State-Owned Enterprises Index.

MAGC The fund seeks equal-weight exposure to the largest and most innovative Chinese companies identified as the China Magnificent Seven.

Why people hold it

  • CXSE The whole design is one screen: state-controlled companies out, privately run ones in, about 200 of them. Not a broad China index with a tweak.
  • 0.32% a year, well under half the 0.70% median for single-country China funds.
  • Trading since 2012, and one of the tighter, more faithful builds in a crowded China cohort.
  • MAGC Equal weight, rebalanced quarterly, so no single giant swallows the basket the way it can in cap-weighted China index funds.roundhillinvestments.com
  • Blue-chip roster only: names such as Alibaba, Tencent and BYD, picked with size and liquidity screens, which skips Chinese small caps entirely.roundhillinvestments.comroundhillinvestments.com 2
  • At 0.60% with no fee waiver, it sits near the median of 30 China funds we track, unusual for a hand-picked, actively managed basket.
  • Roundhill launched it in 2024 and bills it as the first ETF built around this precise basket of China's tech leaders.roundhillinvestments.com

Worth knowing

  • CXSE Thinly traded next to China heavyweights like MCHI and GXC, so limit orders matter more here.
  • One country, about 200 stocks, and none of the state-backed heavyweights as ballast. Swings run bigger than a diversified global fund's.
  • Cheap for the group, not the cheapest: FLCH (0.19%) and JCHI (0.15%) undercut it with different mandates.
  • MAGC Seven companies means one bad quarter at one of them lands hard. Broad China funds spread that risk across hundreds of stocks.roundhillinvestments.com
  • Much of the exposure comes via total return swaps on ADRs (to meet fund diversification tests), backed by Treasury bills, not direct share ownership.roundhillinvestments.comroundhillinvestments.com 2
  • Small and thinly traded, with distributions once or twice a year. Cheaper, broader options like FLCH (0.19%) and CXSE (0.32%) rank at the top of the category.

Full CXSE profile⁠

Full MAGC profile⁠

CXSE vs MAGC Holdings

How CXSE and MAGC differ

Overlap by weight

2.1%

Shared holdings make up 6.4% of MAGC and 2.1% of CXSE.

Level by level

  • Holdings1 in both2.1%
  • Countryby domicile81.5%
  • Asset classEquity100%

Sector

No Sector split for MAGC.

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

Country weights in CXSE and MAGC, widest gap first
CountryMore in CXSEMore in MAGC
Hong KongMAGC +18.5 points
ChinaCXSE +15.7 points
United StatesCXSE +2.4 points
Other countries (2)CXSE +0.4 points

Outside the US: CXSE 5% developed, 95% emerging. MAGC 23% developed, 77% emerging.

Concentration

Weight in the 10 largest Holdings

  • CXSE36.0%
  • MAGC176.7%

Securities held

  • CXSE236
  • MAGC9

Asset class

CXSE
Equity
MAGC
Equity

Holdings

  • Only in CXSE235
  • In both1
  • Only in MAGC8

Only in CXSE

235 securities, 97.8% of CXSE by weight

  • Tencent Holdings Ltd9.97%
  • Alibaba Group Holding Ltd8.18%
  • Contemporary Amperex Techn-A3.36%

Only in MAGC

8 securities, 100% of MAGC by weight

  • United States Treasury Bill 12/03/202682.81%
  • First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/203116.17%
  • BYD Co Ltd6.70%

Weight gaps

All 1 Holdings in both funds, largest gap first.

Holding weights in CXSE and MAGC, widest gap first
HoldingMore in CXSEMore in MAGC
PDD Holdings Inc.PDDMAGC +4.35 points

All 205 CXSE holdings⁠All MAGC holdings⁠

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

CXSE vs MAGC Cost

Overpaying MAGC vs CXSE

$5,275

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • CXSE 0.32%

    $6,542

  • MAGC 0.60%

    $11,817

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • CXSE 0.32%
  • MAGC 0.60%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$2.5K$5K$7.5K$10K$12.5K051015202530MAGC $11,817CXSE $6,542

Year by year

YearCXSEMAGCOverpaying
10$580$1,076$496
20$2,250$4,116$1,866
30$6,542$11,817$5,275

Expense ratio

  • 0.32%CXSE, cheaper
  • 0.60%MAGC
  • Middle half of China funds
  • Median 0.65%

CXSE 2nd cheapest of 28 funds

MAGC 9th cheapest of 28 funds

CXSE vs MAGC Dividends

Last 12 months to Nov 2, 2026
Yield (12M)
CXSE 2.20%
MAGC 5.57%, better
Payout (12M)
CXSE $0.69
MAGC $0.98
Last payment
CXSE $0.26
MAGC $0.98
Ex-dividend
CXSE Sep 25, 2026
MAGC Dec 30, 2025
Paid on
CXSE Sep 29, 2026
MAGC Dec 31, 2025
Frequency
CXSE Quarterly
MAGC Irregular

Distribution history

Per share, 2017 to 2026, same scale for both

CXSEQuarterly · 31 paymentsAll CXSE payments⁠
One bar per payment. 31 payments from 2017 to 2026 YTD. Jun 26, 2017 $0.23; Sep 26, 2017 $0.07; Dec 26, 2017 $0.0095; Jun 25, 2018 $0.26; Sep 25, 2018 $0.14; Dec 24, 2018 $0.05; Jun 24, 2019 $0.18; Sep 24, 2019 $0.21; Dec 23, 2019 $0.01; Jun 23, 2020 $0.21; Sep 22, 2020 $0.10; Dec 21, 2020 $0.05; Jun 24, 2021 $0.25; Sep 24, 2021 $0.14; Dec 27, 2021 $0.04; Mar 25, 2022 $0.16; Jun 24, 2022 $0.23; Sep 26, 2022 $0.11; Dec 23, 2022 $0.04; Jun 26, 2023 $0.25; Sep 25, 2023 $0.11; Dec 22, 2023 $0.13; Jun 25, 2024 $0.29; Sep 25, 2024 $0.14; Dec 26, 2024 $0.09; Jun 25, 2025 $0.32; Sep 25, 2025 $0.14; Dec 26, 2025 $0.33; Mar 26, 2026 $0.02; Jun 25, 2026 $0.09; Sep 25, 2026 $0.26. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$12017202020232026YTD
MAGCIrregular · 2 paymentsAll MAGC payments⁠
One bar per payment. 2 payments from 2017 to 2026 YTD. Dec 30, 2024 $0.22; Dec 30, 2025 $0.98. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$12017202020232026YTD

CXSE vs MAGC Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
CXSE 24.9%MAGC 28.2%since Oct 2025
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
CXSE 0.12MAGC −1.58since Oct 2025
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
CXSE −57.6%MAGC −42.0%since Sep 2025
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
CXSE 0.75MAGC −0.07

Popular comparisons

  • CXSEAvsFLCHA

    WisdomTree China ex-State-Owned Enterprises Fund · Franklin FTSE China ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.32% · 0.19%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • MAGCCvsFLCHA

    Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF · Franklin FTSE China ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.60% · 0.19%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • CXSEAvsMCHIA

    WisdomTree China ex-State-Owned Enterprises Fund · iShares MSCI China ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.32% · 0.59%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • MAGCCvsMCHIA

    Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF · iShares MSCI China ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.60% · 0.59%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • CXSEAvsGXCA

    WisdomTree China ex-State-Owned Enterprises Fund · State Street SPDR S&P China ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.32% · 0.59%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • MAGCCvsGXCA

    Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF · State Street SPDR S&P China ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.60% · 0.59%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.