RYLG vs. OMAH

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RYLG (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and OMAH (VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. RYLG is passively managed, while OMAH is actively managed. Over the past year, RYLG returned 29.67% vs 11.44% for OMAH. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RYLG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for OMAH.

Performance

RYLG vs. OMAH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) 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, RYLG achieves a 12.45% return, which is significantly higher than OMAH's 4.56% return.

RYLG

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: 3.55%
• YTD: 12.45%
• 6M: 12.24%
• 1Y: 29.67%
• 3Y*: 12.54%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

RYLG vs. OMAH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	12.45%	13.30%
OMAH VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF	4.56%	6.74%

Correlation

The correlation between RYLG and OMAH is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2025	0.57

The correlation between RYLG and OMAH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

RYLG vs. OMAH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RYLG	OMAH
Industrials	17.5%	-
Technology	16.8%	13.6%
Healthcare	16.5%	7.0%
Financial Services	16.0%	38.9%
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	4.1%
Real Estate	6.2%	-
Energy	6.2%	10.5%
Basic Materials	4.8%	-
Utilities	2.9%	-
Communication Services	2.5%	9.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	16.2%

Return for Risk

RYLG vs. OMAH — Risk / Return Rank

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

RYLG

RYLG Risk / Return Rank: 64
RYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
RYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
RYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 57
RYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

RYLG vs. OMAH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) 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.

	RYLG	OMAH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.01	1.43	+0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.83	2.02	+0.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.25	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.64	3.82	-0.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.04	9.48	+4.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RYLG vs. OMAH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RYLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is higher than the OMAH Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RYLG 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

	RYLG	OMAH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.01	1.43	+0.58
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.63	0.70	-0.07

Drawdowns

RYLG vs. OMAH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RYLG drawdown since its inception was -22.37%, which is greater than OMAH's maximum drawdown of -11.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RYLG and OMAH.

Drawdown Indicators

	RYLG	OMAH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.37%	-11.83%	-10.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.18%	-3.00%	-5.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.97%	-2.65%	+1.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.13%	-1.26%	-2.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.12%	1.21%	+0.91%

Volatility

RYLG vs. OMAH - Volatility Comparison

Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) has a higher volatility of 3.93% compared to VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH) at 1.93%. This indicates that RYLG'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.

Volatility by Period

	RYLG	OMAH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.93%	1.93%	+2.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.67%	5.49%	+5.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.88%	8.05%	+6.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.17%	13.21%	+3.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.17%	13.21%	+3.96%

RYLG vs. OMAH - Expense Ratio Comparison

RYLG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than OMAH's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

RYLG vs. OMAH - Dividend Comparison

RYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.34%, less than OMAH's 15.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
OMAH VistaShares Target 15™ Berkshire Select Income ETF	15.44%	12.86%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.34%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RYLG and OMAH in my portfolio?

RYLG and OMAH have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RYLG or OMAH?

RYLG has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to OMAH (1.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RYLG dropped -22.37% vs OMAH's -11.83%.

Which ETF is better, RYLG or OMAH?

On 1-year performance, RYLG leads with 29.67% vs 11.44% for OMAH. On fees, RYLG is cheaper at 0.35% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, RYLG or OMAH?

Over the 1-year period, RYLG has performed better with a 29.67% return vs 11.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RYLG or OMAH?

RYLG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for OMAH.

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

OMAH has the higher dividend yield at 15.44%, compared with 10.34% for RYLG.

What is the main difference between RYLG and OMAH?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and VistaShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RYLG and 0.95% for OMAH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.01 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.