Data as of .
OARK vs OMAH: which paid, and which earned it?
Over the year OARK paid 37.4% of its price in cash against OMAH’s 14.4%, though OMAH returned more with it reinvested.
ETFIQ Return Stability Score: OMAH scores higher
Was the payout funded by returns, or by your own capital?
A percentile among the 173 income ETFs writing on an index or proxy. It is a position in a set, not a rating, and neither end of it is a recommendation. All income ETFs ranked by it · How it is computed
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, OARK and OMAH hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in OARK | Only in OMAH |
|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 37.81% | Apple Inc 10.59% |
| TREASURY BILL 30.32% | Berkshire Hathaway Inc 10.22% |
| TREASURY BILL 18.55% | American Express Co 6.57% |
| TREASURY BILL 10.80% | Coca-Cola Co/The 4.94% |
| TREASURY BILL 2.51% | 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 Apr 30, 2026 and Sep 21, 2026.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Cash paid | Against the benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OARK | OMAH | OARK | OMAH | OARK | OMAH | |
| 3 months | +3.9% | +1.7% | 9.0% | 3.7% | +6.4 pts | −2.4 pts |
| 6 months | +20.0% | +8.8% | 22.6% | 7.7% | −4.2 pts | +2.8 pts |
| 1 year | +6.6% | +8.8% | 37.4% | 14.4% | −15.2 pts | +4.9 pts |
| 3 years | +61.9% | not published | 87.5% | not published | −36.3 pts | not published |
| Since launch | +58.8% | +14.6% | 89.4% | 21.4% | −96.7 pts | +12.4 pts |
| OARK YieldMax(R) Innovation Option Income Strategy ETF Synthetic covered call on QQQ, paying weekly | OMAH VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF Covered call on BRK-B, paying monthly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | YieldMax | VistaShares |
| Strategy | synthetic covered call | covered call |
| Benchmark | Nasdaq-100 (QQQ), used as the innovation proxy | Berkshire Hathaway B (BRK-B), used as the proxy |
| Pays | weekly | monthly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 27.9% | 15.1% |
| Expense ratio | 1.00% | 0.98% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 37.4% | 14.4% |
| Price change, 1 year | −34.0% | −6.3% |
| Total return, 1 year | +6.6% | +8.8% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | +21.8% | +3.9% |
| Ahead or behind | −15.2 pts | +4.9 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | 0% | not published |
| Age | 1395 days | 562 days |
| Net assets | $32m | $1.1bn |
OARK in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, OARK paid 37.4% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 34.0%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +6.6%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ), used as the innovation proxy returned +21.8% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 15.2 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 27.9%, paid weekly. YieldMax estimates that 0% of the distribution paid Sep 18, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterization rather than a measure of erosion).
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 paid more, OARK or OMAH?
- Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, OARK paid 37.4% of its starting price in cash and OMAH paid 14.4%, so OARK paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
- Which returned more once distributions are counted, OARK or OMAH?
- With every distribution reinvested, OARK returned +6.6% and OMAH returned +8.8% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so OMAH returned more.
- Which is cheaper, OARK or OMAH?
- OARK charges 1.00% a year and OMAH charges 0.98%, so OMAH 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, OARK against OMAH, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/oark-vs-omah Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.