PLA vs. OMAH
PLA (GraniteShares Autocallable PLTR ETF) and OMAH (VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PLA charges 1.07%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for OMAH.
Performance
PLA vs. OMAH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
PLA
- 1D
- 1.29%
- 1M
- -7.63%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
OMAH
- 1D
- 0.33%
- 1M
- 0.33%
- YTD
- 6.34%
- 6M
- 5.88%
- 1Y
- 11.92%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PLA vs. OMAH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
PLA GraniteShares Autocallable PLTR ETF | -4.47% |
OMAH VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF | -0.33% |
Correlation
The correlation between PLA and OMAH is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 19, 2026 | 0.46 |
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
PLA vs. OMAH — Risk / Return Rank
PLA
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
OMAH
PLA vs. OMAH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Autocallable PLTR ETF (PLA) 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.
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.
| PLA | OMAH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.26 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.99 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 9.38 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PLA vs. OMAH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PLA drawdown since its inception was -12.39%, roughly equal to the maximum OMAH drawdown of -11.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PLA and OMAH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PLA | OMAH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.39% | -11.83% | -0.56% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -3.00% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.75% | -1.00% | -7.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.45% | -1.27% | -3.18% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.27% | — |
Volatility
PLA vs. OMAH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PLA | OMAH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 2.37% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 5.64% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.88% | 8.06% | +15.82% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.88% | 12.97% | +10.91% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.88% | 12.97% | +10.91% |
PLA vs. OMAH - Expense Ratio Comparison
PLA has a 1.07% expense ratio, which is higher than OMAH's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
PLA vs. OMAH - Dividend Comparison
PLA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%, less than OMAH's 15.34% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
OMAH VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF | 15.34% | 12.86% |
PLA GraniteShares Autocallable PLTR ETF | 1.79% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PLA and OMAH have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, OMAH is cheaper at 0.95% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
OMAH is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.07% for PLA.
OMAH has the higher dividend yield at 15.34%, compared with 1.79% for PLA.
They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and VistaShares. Their fees differ too: 1.07% for PLA and 0.95% for OMAH.
Find the right allocation for PLA and OMAH
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