PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
OMAH vs. IWMI
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

OMAH vs. IWMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH) and NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, OMAH achieves a 4.56% return, which is significantly lower than IWMI's 13.36% return.


OMAH

1D
-0.70%
1M
0.44%
YTD
4.56%
6M
4.00%
1Y
11.44%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

IWMI

1D
-1.02%
1M
3.18%
YTD
13.36%
6M
13.24%
1Y
34.38%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

OMAH vs. IWMI - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between OMAH and IWMI is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.49

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2025

0.58

The correlation between OMAH and IWMI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

OMAH vs. IWMI - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
OMAH
IWMI

Financial Services

38.9%
16.0%

Consumer Defensive

16.2%
2.6%

Technology

13.6%
15.1%

Energy

10.5%
6.5%

Communication Services

9.8%
2.4%

Healthcare

7.0%
17.9%

Consumer Cyclical

4.1%
8.6%

Basic Materials

-

5.0%

Industrials

-

16.6%

Real Estate

-

6.3%

Utilities

-

3.1%

Financial Services

OMAH
38.9%
IWMI
16.0%

Consumer Defensive

OMAH
16.2%
IWMI
2.6%

Technology

OMAH
13.6%
IWMI
15.1%

Energy

OMAH
10.5%
IWMI
6.5%

Communication Services

OMAH
9.8%
IWMI
2.4%

Healthcare

OMAH
7.0%
IWMI
17.9%

Consumer Cyclical

OMAH
4.1%
IWMI
8.6%

Basic Materials

OMAH

-

IWMI
5.0%

Industrials

OMAH

-

IWMI
16.6%

Real Estate

OMAH

-

IWMI
6.3%

Utilities

OMAH

-

IWMI
3.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

OMAH vs. IWMI — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

OMAH
OMAH Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
OMAH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3939
Sharpe Ratio Rank
OMAH Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
OMAH Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
OMAH Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
OMAH Martin Ratio Rank: 5454
Martin Ratio Rank

IWMI
IWMI Risk / Return Rank: 7373
Overall Rank
IWMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWMI Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
IWMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWMI Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

OMAH vs. IWMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH) and NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.


OMAHIWMIDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.90

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.23

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.41

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.82

4.11

-0.29

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.48

17.09

-7.61

OMAH vs. IWMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current OMAH Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is lower than the IWMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of OMAH and IWMI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


OMAHIWMIDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.43

2.33

-0.90

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.70

1.04

-0.34

Drawdowns

OMAH vs. IWMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum OMAH drawdown since its inception was -11.83%, smaller than the maximum IWMI drawdown of -23.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for OMAH and IWMI.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


OMAHIWMIDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-11.83%

-23.88%

+12.05%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.00%

-8.40%

+5.40%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.65%

-1.02%

-1.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.26%

-4.12%

+2.86%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.21%

2.02%

-0.81%

Volatility

OMAH vs. IWMI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH) is 1.93%, while NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) has a volatility of 4.31%. This indicates that OMAH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


OMAHIWMIDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.93%

4.31%

-2.38%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.49%

10.74%

-5.25%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.05%

14.84%

-6.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.21%

17.89%

-4.68%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.21%

17.89%

-4.68%

OMAH vs. IWMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

OMAH has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IWMI's 0.68% expense ratio.


Dividends

OMAH vs. IWMI - Dividend Comparison

OMAH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 15.44%, more than IWMI's 13.52% yield.


PositionTTM20252024
IWMI
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
13.52%14.05%8.78%
OMAH
VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF
15.44%12.86%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


OMAH and IWMI have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWMI has higher volatility (4.31%) compared to OMAH (1.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, OMAH dropped -11.83% vs IWMI's -23.88%.

On 1-year performance, IWMI leads with 34.38% vs 11.44% for OMAH. On fees, IWMI is cheaper at 0.68% per year. On volatility, OMAH has been the lower-risk option at 1.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, IWMI has performed better with a 34.38% return vs 11.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWMI is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for OMAH.

OMAH has the higher dividend yield at 15.44%, compared with 13.52% for IWMI.

They also come from different issuers: VistaShares and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for OMAH and 0.68% for IWMI.

IWMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 1.43), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for OMAH and IWMI

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer