Data as of .
OMAH vs QLDY: which paid, and which earned it?
Over the year QLDY paid 29.2% of its price in cash against OMAH’s 14.4%, and 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, OMAH and QLDY hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in OMAH | Only in QLDY |
|---|---|
| Apple Inc 10.59% | Ndx 12/18/2026 2001.44 C 94.80% |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc 10.22% | First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 4.77% |
| American Express Co 6.57% | United States Treasury Note/bond 2.375% 05/15/2027 0.53% |
| Coca-Cola Co/The 4.94% | Ndxp Us 09/21/26 P29500 0.08% |
| VeriSign Inc 4.90% | Xnd 12/18/2026 10.44 C 0.05% |
| Kroger Co/The 4.79% | Cash & Other -0.06% |
| Chevron Corp 4.75% | Nasdaq-1 Put Opt 09/26 29650 -0.16% |
| 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 21, 2026.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Cash paid | Against the benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OMAH | QLDY | OMAH | QLDY | OMAH | QLDY | |
| 3 months | +1.7% | −6.6% | 3.7% | 8.3% | −2.4 pts | −4.1 pts |
| 6 months | +8.8% | +20.1% | 7.7% | 18.7% | +2.8 pts | −4.2 pts |
| 1 year | +8.8% | +10.6% | 14.4% | 29.2% | +4.9 pts | −11.2 pts |
| Since launch | +14.6% | +10.6% | 21.4% | 29.2% | +12.4 pts | −11.2 pts |
| OMAH VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF Covered call on BRK-B, paying monthly | QLDY Defiance Nasdaq 100 LightningSpread(TM) Income ETF Option income on QQQ, paying weekly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | VistaShares | Defiance |
| Strategy | covered call | option income |
| Benchmark | Berkshire Hathaway B (BRK-B), used as the proxy | Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) |
| Pays | monthly | weekly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 15.1% | 19.6% |
| Expense ratio | 0.98% | 1.04% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 14.4% | 29.2% |
| Price change, 1 year | −6.3% | −20.3% |
| Total return, 1 year | +8.8% | +10.6% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | +3.9% | +21.8% |
| Ahead or behind | +4.9 pts | −11.2 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | not published | 100% |
| Age | 562 days | 365 days |
| Net assets | $1.1bn | $52m |
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.
QLDY in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, QLDY paid 29.2% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 20.3%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +10.6%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) returned +21.8% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 11.2 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 19.6%, paid weekly. Defiance estimates that 100% of the distribution paid Sep 17, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterization rather than a measure of erosion).
Questions people ask
- Which paid more, OMAH or QLDY?
- Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, OMAH paid 14.4% of its starting price in cash and QLDY paid 29.2%, so QLDY paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
- Which returned more once distributions are counted, OMAH or QLDY?
- With every distribution reinvested, OMAH returned +8.8% and QLDY returned +10.6% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so QLDY returned more.
- Which is cheaper, OMAH or QLDY?
- OMAH charges 0.98% a year and QLDY charges 1.04%, 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, OMAH against QLDY, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/omah-vs-qldy Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.