Get the weekly note
ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

Data as of .

ACSP vs OMAH: which paid, and which earned it?

ACSP and OMAH both write options for income.

ProShares S&P 500 Autocallable Income ETF and VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF.

0.0%ACSP cash paid, 1 year
14.4%OMAH cash paid, 1 year
−3.8%ACSP total return, 1 year
+8.8%OMAH total return, 1 year
ACSP2.1 pts behind SPY · since launch to Sep 18, 2026
SPY−1.6%ACSP−3.8%2.1 pts behind SPYTotal return, distributions reinvestedSPY−1.6%ACSP−3.8%2.1 pts behind SPY
OMAH4.9 pts ahead of BRK-B · 1 year to Sep 18, 2026
BRK-B+3.9%OMAH+8.8%14.4% of it arrived as cash4.9 pts ahead of BRK-BTotal return, distributions reinvestedBRK-B+3.9%OMAH+8.8%14.4% as cash4.9 pts ahead of BRK-B

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACSP and OMAH hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Only in each
Only in ACSPOnly in OMAH
S&P500 FUTURES 35% AUTOCALL SWAP BANK OF AMERICA NA 100.00%Apple Inc 10.59%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc 10.22%
American Express Co 6.57%
Coca-Cola Co/The 4.94%
VeriSign Inc 4.90%
Kroger Co/The 4.79%
Chevron Corp 4.75%
DAVITA INC 4.75%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Sep 18, 2026 and Sep 21, 2026.

Performance, window by window

ACSP and OMAH over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ.
WindowTotal returnCash paidAgainst the benchmark
ACSPOMAHACSPOMAHACSPOMAH
3 monthsnot published+1.7%not published3.7%not published−2.4 pts
6 monthsnot published+8.8%not published7.7%not published+2.8 pts
1 yearnot published+8.8%not published14.4%not published+4.9 pts
Since launch−3.8%+14.6%0.0%21.4%−2.1 pts+12.4 pts
Open the live comparison on ETFIQ
ACSP and OMAH on the same fields, as of Sep 18, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACSP
ProShares S&P 500 Autocallable Income ETF
Option income on SPY
OMAH
VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF
Covered call on BRK-B, paying monthly
IssuerProSharesVistaShares
Strategyoption incomecovered call
BenchmarkS&P 500 (SPY)Berkshire Hathaway B (BRK-B), used as the proxy
Paysnot establishedmonthly
Payout rate, annualizednot published15.1%
Expense ratio0.72%0.98%
Cash paid, 1 year0.0% (since launch on Aug 14, 2026)14.4%
Price change, 1 year−3.8%−6.3%
Total return, 1 year−3.8% (since launch on Aug 14, 2026)+8.8%
Benchmark return, 1 year−1.6%+3.9%
Ahead or behind−2.1 pts+4.9 pts
Return of capital, latest estimatenot publishednot published
Age35 days562 days
Net assets$27m$1.1bn

ACSP in plain words

Over the period since launch on Aug 14, 2026 to Sep 18, 2026, ACSP paid 0.0% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 3.8%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned −3.8%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned −1.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 2.1 pts.

OMAH in plain words

Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, OMAH paid 14.4% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 6.3%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +8.8%. Berkshire Hathaway B (BRK-B), used as the proxy returned +3.9% over the same days, so a holder was ahead by 4.9 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 15.1%, paid monthly.

Questions people ask

Which is cheaper, ACSP or OMAH?
ACSP charges 0.72% a year and OMAH charges 0.98%, so ACSP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Other comparisons

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.

ACSP against OMAH, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 18, 2026. Every figure is calculated from a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, ACSP against OMAH, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/acsp-vs-omah Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

How every figure is computed · Standards and sources