OMAH vs. RYLD

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

OMAH (VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF) and RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. OMAH is actively managed, while RYLD is passively managed. Over the past year, OMAH returned 16.89% vs 24.71% for RYLD. Their 0.48 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. OMAH charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for RYLD.

Performance

OMAH vs. RYLD - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, OMAH achieves a 10.88% return, which is significantly lower than RYLD's 14.18% return.

OMAH

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: 2.11%
• 6M: 10.79%
• YTD: 10.88%
• 1Y: 16.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.50%

RYLD

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: 2.90%
• 6M: 11.01%
• YTD: 14.18%
• 1Y: 24.71%
• 3Y*: 8.92%
• 5Y*: 3.40%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.04%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
OMAH VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF	$20.61M	$17.47M	$16.72M
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	$10.56M	$9.60M	$9.13M

OMAH vs. RYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
OMAH VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF	10.88%	6.55%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	14.18%	8.87%

Correlation

The correlation between OMAH and RYLD is 0.33, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 5, 2025	0.48

The correlation between OMAH and RYLD shifts across timeframes, from 0.33 (1 year) to 0.48 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

OMAH vs. RYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	OMAH	RYLD
Financial Services	39.1%	17.8%
Communication Services	19.1%	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	12.7%	2.6%
Technology	10.5%	14.5%
Energy	7.7%	5.5%
Industrials	5.9%	14.1%
Healthcare	5.0%	20.3%
Consumer Cyclical	4.1%	9.2%
Basic Materials	-	4.4%
Real Estate	-	6.8%
Utilities	-	2.8%

Return for Risk

OMAH vs. RYLD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

OMAH

OMAH Risk / Return Rank: 83
OMAH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
OMAH Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
OMAH Omega Ratio Rank: 77
OMAH Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
OMAH Martin Ratio Rank: 86

RYLD

RYLD Risk / Return Rank: 90
RYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
RYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
RYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 93
RYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
RYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 91

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

OMAH vs. RYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH) and Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	OMAH	RYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	2.38	-0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.86	3.34	-0.48
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.50	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.76	3.94	+1.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.81	16.16	-2.35

OMAH vs. RYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current OMAH Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is comparable to the RYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of OMAH and RYLD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

OMAH vs. RYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum OMAH drawdown since its inception was -11.83%, smaller than the maximum RYLD drawdown of -41.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for OMAH and RYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	OMAH	RYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.83%	-41.53%	+29.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.95%	-6.29%	+3.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.05%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.33%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.22%	-8.64%	+7.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.23%	1.53%	-0.30%

Volatility

OMAH vs. RYLD - Volatility Comparison

VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH) has a higher volatility of 3.01% compared to Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) at 2.34%. This indicates that OMAH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RYLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	OMAH	RYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.01%	2.34%	+0.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.91%	7.72%	-1.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.35%	10.57%	-2.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.82%	13.98%	-1.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.82%	17.04%	-4.22%

OMAH vs. RYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

OMAH has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than RYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

OMAH vs. RYLD - Dividend Comparison

OMAH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.83%, more than RYLD's 11.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
OMAH VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF	14.83%	12.86%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	11.43%	12.00%	12.03%	12.64%	13.49%	12.35%	10.76%	6.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both OMAH and RYLD in my portfolio?

OMAH and RYLD have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, OMAH or RYLD?

OMAH has higher volatility (3.01%) compared to RYLD (2.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, OMAH dropped -11.83% vs RYLD's -41.53%.

Which ETF is better, OMAH or RYLD?

On 1-year performance, RYLD leads with 24.71% vs 16.89% for OMAH. On fees, RYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, RYLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, OMAH or RYLD?

Over the 1-year period, RYLD has performed better with a 24.71% return vs 16.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, OMAH or RYLD?

RYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for OMAH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, OMAH or RYLD?

OMAH has the higher dividend yield at 14.83%, compared with 11.43% for RYLD.

What is the main difference between OMAH and RYLD?

They also come from different issuers: VistaShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for OMAH and 0.60% for RYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 2.03), 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.