A group of ETFs called the "Magnificent 7" lost a lot of money last week, but some other ETFs made money. Two of these ETFs are AXS Short Innovation Daily ETF and Roundhill Daily Inverse Magnificent Seven ETF. They both try to make money by going against the performance of the "Magnificent 7" ETFs. Another ETF that made money is USCF Aluminum Strategy Fund, which tries to invest in aluminum in a smart way.

Summary:
Some ETFs did well last week while others lost a lot. The ones that did well were betting against or investing differently from the "Magnificent 7" ETFs, which had a bad week. Read from source...

- The title of the article is misleading and does not reflect the actual content. It implies that there are some ETF winners amid a record loss in the "Magnificent 7", which refers to seven popular growth stocks (ARKK, ARKW, CRM, FB, NFLX, SHOP, TSLA). However, the article does not provide any data or evidence on how these ETFs performed relative to each other. It also does not explain why investors would want to short these ETFs in the first place.
- The article focuses too much on the performance of two inverse ETFs (AXS Short Innovation Daily ETF and Roundhill Daily Inverse Magnificent Seven ETF) that bet against the growth stocks. It mentions their returns for the week, but does not provide any context or analysis on why they rose or fell. It also does not mention any other inverse ETFs that may have performed better or worse.
- The article introduces a third ETF (USCF Aluminum Strategy Fund) that is unrelated to the previous two and has nothing to do with the "Magnificent 7". It seems like an afterthought and does not add any value to the story. It also does not explain how aluminum prices or supply chain issues affect the ETF's performance.
- The article uses vague and ambiguous terms such as "record loss", "momentum", "outperformance", and "volatility" without defining them or providing any data to support them. It also relies on anecdotal evidence from market experts who may have biased opinions or conflicting interests.
- The article lacks objectivity and balance in its presentation of the information. It seems to favor a bearish view on the growth stocks and a bullish view on the inverse ETFs, without acknowledging the possibility of other scenarios or factors that may influence the market. It also does not provide any historical or comparative analysis on how these ETFs have performed in the past or how they compare to their benchmarks or peers.
- The article is poorly structured and organized. It jumps from one topic to another without clear transitions or connections. It also repeats some information unnecessarily and uses confusing and inconsistent terminology. For example, it mentions "core retail sales" in the first paragraph, but then refers to them as "excluding auto" in the second paragraph. It also switches from using the acronym ETF to explaining what it means in the last paragraph.

### Final answer: AI's article story critics.