Does TSLA move with the 'Mag 7'? Daily-return correlations vs AAPL/MSFT/NVDA/GOOGL/AMZN/META (last ~3 years)
Surprisingly, TSLA turns out to be a weaker member of the so‑called "Mag 7" than the label implies — its daily returns are noticeably more idiosyncratic. Over ~3 years (750 trading days) TSLA’s average pairwise correlation with AAPL, MSFT, NVDA, GOOGL, AMZN, and META was 0.411 versus 0.490 for the six peers among themselves (gap −0.079). On 60-day rolling windows the pooled means widen to 0.364 vs 0.469 (gap −0.104), and TSLA’s rolling correlation sat below the peers’ mean roughly 72.6% of the time; the pooled test gives t = −29.58, p ≈ 3.8×10−183.
I computed these results from minute data resampled to daily closes, built full-sample and 60‑day rolling Pearson correlation matrices, and compared TSLA‑with‑others against peers‑with‑peers (Welch t-test). The charts and full statistics below show the dynamics, robustness checks, and what the gap means for labeling TSLA a tight "Mag 7" component.
For TSLA over the past ~3 years, does it really belong to the 'Magnificent 7' mega-cap tech trade, or does it march to its own drummer — how does its daily-return correlation with AAPL, MSFT, NVDA, GOOGL, AMZN, and META stack up against how tightly those six track each other? Thesis: TSLA posts by far the weakest pairwise correlations in the group, so its returns are largely idiosyncratic and the 'Mag 7 basket' label overstates how much it actually moves with the pack.
How this was measured
Resampled minute data to daily closes for TSLA, AAPL, MSFT, NVDA, GOOGL, AMZN, and META over the last ~3 years, then computed close-to-close daily returns. Measured the full-sample Pearson correlation matrix and summarized TSLA’s average correlation with the other six versus the average intra-peer correlation among the six non-TSLA mega-caps. To assess time-variation, computed a 60-trading-day rolling correlation matrix per day and tracked the rolling mean of TSLA↔peers vs the rolling mean within-peers. For a distributional contrast, pooled all 60-day rolling pairwise correlations into two samples (TSLA-with-others vs peers-with-peers) and applied a Welch two-sample t-test (unequal variances). All comparisons are on the intersection of available trading days across tickers.
The key numbers
Reading the numbers
Over 750 trading days, TSLA's average daily-return correlation with the other six is ~0.411 while the six peers among themselves average ~0.490, a gap of -0.078 (larger on 60d rolling: -0.104) — TSLA is measurably less correlated with the group.
The charts
The full-sample correlation matrix puts TSLA in a narrow band: TSLA vs AAPL 0.403, MSFT 0.378, NVDA 0.416, GOOGL 0.413, AMZN 0.440, META 0.419. By contrast several peer–peer links are noticeably stronger (for example AMZN–META 0.629, MSFT–META 0.583, MSFT–NVDA 0.539). What to watch is TSLA's consistent mid‑0.3 to low‑0.4 correlations versus the higher 0.5+ pockets among peers — that pattern supports the idea TSLA is less tightly coupled to the rest.
The 60-day rolling means show TSLA’s pooled mean ~0.364 versus the within‑peers pooled mean ~0.469; both series began near ~0.49 and drifted down (TSLA last ~0.336, peers last ~0.3005). TSLA’s rolling range is wider (min 0.0609, max 0.771) while the peers’ range is narrower at the low end (min 0.2168), so TSLA experiences more frequent episodes of very low co‑movement. The Welch t‑stat of -29.58 with p≈3.78e-183 says the rolling correlation distributions differ in a statistically meaningful way, and TSLA’s 60d corr is below the peers’ mean on ~72.65% of days (median daily gap -0.091).
The horizontal ordering of mean full-sample correlations shows TSLA at 0.4114, which is second‑lowest after AAPL at 0.3993; the top of the list is AMZN (0.525) and META (0.5128). So TSLA sits at the low end of the group but is not the single weakest link. In plain terms, the bar chart confirms TSLA is more peripheral in the Mag‑7 correlation structure — lower than most peers, but not an extreme outlier relative to AAPL.
Mean correlation with others — full sample (sorted ascending)
| ticker | mean_corr_with_others |
|---|---|
| AAPL | 0.3993 |
| TSLA | 0.4114 |
| GOOGL | 0.4574 |
| NVDA | 0.4817 |
| MSFT | 0.4855 |
| META | 0.5128 |
| AMZN | 0.525 |
Pairwise full-sample correlations (all pairs, sorted ascending)
| pair | correlation |
|---|---|
| AAPL–NVDA | 0.3725 |
| TSLA–MSFT | 0.3781 |
| AAPL–META | 0.3889 |
| TSLA–AAPL | 0.4028 |
| AAPL–MSFT | 0.4034 |
| AAPL–GOOGL | 0.4043 |
| TSLA–GOOGL | 0.4131 |
| TSLA–NVDA | 0.4155 |
| TSLA–META | 0.4194 |
| AAPL–AMZN | 0.4236 |
| MSFT–GOOGL | 0.4287 |
| TSLA–AMZN | 0.4396 |
| NVDA–GOOGL | 0.464 |
| GOOGL–META | 0.4953 |
| NVDA–AMZN | 0.5385 |
| GOOGL–AMZN | 0.5388 |
| MSFT–NVDA | 0.5392 |
| NVDA–META | 0.5605 |
| MSFT–AMZN | 0.5805 |
| MSFT–META | 0.5832 |
| AMZN–META | 0.6293 |
The takeaway
Short answer: TSLA is measurably less tied to the other six so-called 'Mag 7' names — its daily returns are more idiosyncratic. Over the full sample (750 trading days) TSLA's mean correlation with the six peers was 0.411 versus 0.490 for the peers-with-each-other (a gap of -0.079). On 60-day rolling windows the pooled means were 0.364 for TSLA-with-others versus 0.469 within-peers (gap -0.104), and TSLA's 60-day correlation was below the peers' mean on about 72.6% of rolling windows (median daily gap -0.091). Statistically this is a strong difference: the pooled rolling comparison yields t = -29.58 with a p-value ≈ 3.8×10^-183, so it's effectively vanishingly unlikely this gap is pure noise. That said, rolling-window overlap inflates the apparent sample size, but the full-sample gap across 750 days shows the effect isn't just an artifact of windowing. Practical takeaway: don't assume TSLA behaves like a tight member of the Mag 7 basket — it often moves more on its own.
The fine print
- Rolling-window samples overlap heavily; the Welch t-test therefore overstates effective degrees of freedom.
- Results cover the last ~3 years only; correlation structure can shift materially across regimes.
- These use daily close-to-close returns; intraday co-movement spikes are not captured.
- Peers were equal-weighted here; a cap-weighted basket would change TSLA-to-basket correlations slightly.