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

Performance

QQQI vs. OMAH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) and VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQI achieves a 9.46% return, which is significantly higher than OMAH's 5.64% return.


QQQI

1D
-0.36%
1M
-1.29%
YTD
9.46%
6M
8.08%
1Y
23.23%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

OMAH

1D
0.32%
1M
-1.65%
YTD
5.64%
6M
5.18%
1Y
11.37%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QQQI vs. OMAH - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between QQQI and OMAH is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.29

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 5, 2025

0.44

The correlation between QQQI and OMAH shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (1 year) to 0.44 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QQQI vs. OMAH - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QQQI
OMAH

Technology

58.1%
11.6%

Communication Services

14.2%
19.8%

Consumer Cyclical

11.3%
4.1%

Consumer Defensive

6.5%
13.2%

Healthcare

3.9%
4.4%

Industrials

3.0%
4.9%

Utilities

1.3%

-

Basic Materials

1.0%

-

Energy

0.5%
8.8%

Financial Services

0.2%
37.3%

Real Estate

0.1%

-

Technology

QQQI
58.1%
OMAH
11.6%

Communication Services

QQQI
14.2%
OMAH
19.8%

Consumer Cyclical

QQQI
11.3%
OMAH
4.1%

Consumer Defensive

QQQI
6.5%
OMAH
13.2%

Healthcare

QQQI
3.9%
OMAH
4.4%

Industrials

QQQI
3.0%
OMAH
4.9%

Utilities

QQQI
1.3%
OMAH

-

Basic Materials

QQQI
1.0%
OMAH

-

Energy

QQQI
0.5%
OMAH
8.8%

Financial Services

QQQI
0.2%
OMAH
37.3%

Real Estate

QQQI
0.1%
OMAH

-

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

QQQI vs. OMAH — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQI
QQQI Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
QQQI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QQQI Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
QQQI Omega Ratio Rank: 5252
Omega Ratio Rank
QQQI Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
QQQI Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank

OMAH
OMAH Risk / Return Rank: 5353
Overall Rank
OMAH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
OMAH Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
OMAH Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
OMAH Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
OMAH Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
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.

QQQI vs. OMAH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) 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.


QQQIOMAHDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.16

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.12

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.25

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.43

3.80

-1.37

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.31

9.02

+1.30

QQQI vs. OMAH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQI Sharpe Ratio is 1.58, which is comparable to the OMAH Sharpe Ratio of 1.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQI 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

QQQI vs. OMAH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQI drawdown since its inception was -20.00%, which is greater than OMAH's maximum drawdown of -11.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQI and OMAH.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QQQIOMAHDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.00%

-11.83%

-8.17%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.61%

-3.00%

-6.61%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.67%

-1.65%

-2.02%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.21%

-1.27%

-0.94%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.26%

1.26%

+1.00%

Volatility

QQQI vs. OMAH - Volatility Comparison

NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) has a higher volatility of 7.62% compared to VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH) at 2.23%. This indicates that QQQI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than OMAH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QQQIOMAHDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.62%

2.23%

+5.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.94%

5.59%

+6.35%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.78%

8.03%

+6.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.51%

13.01%

+4.50%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.51%

13.01%

+4.50%

QQQI vs. OMAH - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQI has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is lower than OMAH's 0.95% expense ratio.


Dividends

QQQI vs. OMAH - Dividend Comparison

QQQI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 15.03%, more than OMAH's 14.01% yield.


PositionTTM20252024
OMAH
VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF
14.01%12.86%0.00%
QQQI
NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF
15.03%13.82%12.85%

Frequently Asked Questions


QQQI and OMAH have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QQQI has higher volatility (7.62%) compared to OMAH (2.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQI dropped -20.00% vs OMAH's -11.83%.

On 1-year performance, QQQI leads with 23.23% vs 11.37% for OMAH. On fees, QQQI is cheaper at 0.68% per year. On volatility, OMAH has been the lower-risk option at 2.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, QQQI has performed better with a 23.23% return vs 11.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

QQQI has the higher dividend yield at 15.03%, compared with 14.01% for OMAH.

QQQI is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while OMAH is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: Neos and VistaShares. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for QQQI and 0.95% for OMAH.

QQQI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.58 vs 1.42), 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 QQQI 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