PBP vs. OMAH

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PBP (Invesco S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF) and OMAH (VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. PBP is passively managed, while OMAH is actively managed. Over the past year, PBP returned 18.32% vs 11.44% for OMAH. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PBP charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for OMAH.

Performance

PBP vs. OMAH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (PBP) and VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PBP achieves a 4.90% return, which is significantly higher than OMAH's 4.56% return.

PBP

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 2.03%
• YTD: 4.90%
• 6M: 6.44%
• 1Y: 18.32%
• 3Y*: 11.58%
• 5Y*: 8.10%
• 10Y*: 7.14%

OMAH

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

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

PBP vs. OMAH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
PBP Invesco S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF	4.90%	8.47%
OMAH VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF	4.56%	6.74%

Correlation

The correlation between PBP and OMAH is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2025	0.52

The correlation between PBP and OMAH shifts across timeframes, from 0.42 (1 year) to 0.52 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PBP vs. OMAH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PBP	OMAH
Technology	39.5%	13.6%
Financial Services	11.4%	38.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	9.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	4.1%
Healthcare	8.6%	7.0%
Industrials	7.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	16.2%
Energy	3.3%	10.5%
Utilities	2.6%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	-

Return for Risk

PBP vs. OMAH — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBP

PBP Risk / Return Rank: 82
PBP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
PBP Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
PBP Omega Ratio Rank: 90
PBP Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
PBP Martin Ratio Rank: 86

OMAH

OMAH Risk / Return Rank: 49
OMAH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
OMAH Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
OMAH Omega Ratio Rank: 37
OMAH Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
OMAH Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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.

PBP vs. OMAH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (PBP) and VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH). 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.

	PBP	OMAH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.68	1.43	+1.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.86	2.02	+1.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.60	1.25	+0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.52	3.82	-0.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.66	9.48	+9.18
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PBP vs. OMAH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBP Sharpe Ratio is 2.68, which is higher than the OMAH Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBP and OMAH, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PBP	OMAH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.68	1.43	+1.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.52	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	0.70	-0.36

Drawdowns

PBP vs. OMAH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBP drawdown since its inception was -43.43%, which is greater than OMAH's maximum drawdown of -11.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBP and OMAH.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBP	OMAH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.43%	-11.83%	-31.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.22%	-3.00%	-2.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.42%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.61%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.31%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.17%	-2.65%	+2.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.69%	-1.26%	-5.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.98%	1.21%	-0.23%

Volatility

PBP vs. OMAH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (PBP) is 0.93%, while VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH) has a volatility of 1.93%. This indicates that PBP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than OMAH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBP	OMAH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.93%	1.93%	-1.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.53%	5.49%	+0.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.87%	8.05%	-1.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.86%	13.21%	-1.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.66%	13.21%	+0.45%

PBP vs. OMAH - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBP has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than OMAH's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBP vs. OMAH - Dividend Comparison

PBP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.16%, less than OMAH's 15.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
OMAH VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF	15.44%	12.86%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PBP Invesco S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF	11.16%	11.12%	9.36%	3.35%	1.33%	6.21%	1.41%	5.04%	2.59%	10.86%	2.56%	6.19%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBP and OMAH in my portfolio?

PBP and OMAH have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PBP or OMAH?

OMAH has higher volatility (1.93%) compared to PBP (0.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBP dropped -43.43% vs OMAH's -11.83%.

Which ETF is better, PBP or OMAH?

On 1-year performance, PBP leads with 18.32% vs 11.44% for OMAH. On fees, PBP is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, PBP has been the lower-risk option at 0.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBP or OMAH?

Over the 1-year period, PBP has performed better with a 18.32% return vs 11.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBP or OMAH?

PBP is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for OMAH.

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

OMAH has the higher dividend yield at 15.44%, compared with 11.16% for PBP.

What is the main difference between PBP and OMAH?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and VistaShares. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for PBP and 0.95% for OMAH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.68 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.