OMAH vs PLTW: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
OMAH and PLTW are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. OMAH is VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF, while PLTW is Roundhill Investments - PLTR WeeklyPay ETF. OMAH is broader by holdings count, with 75 positions versus 5 for PLTW. OMAH has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has OMAH ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 36.
What is the main difference between OMAH and PLTW?
OMAH holds 75 positions to PLTW's 5.
| Metric | OMAH | PLTW |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.99% |
| Holdings | 75 | 5 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 15.37% | 67.97% |
| Average volume | 1,089,645 | 163,542 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -3.4% | -45.6% |
| YTD return | -3.1% | -34.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 9.3% | 72% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.5% | -70.2% |
| Beta | 0.21 | 2.36 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.88 | -0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.18 | -0.99 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 36/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 72/100 | 47/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 63/100 | 14/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF vs Roundhill Investments - PLTR WeeklyPay ETF
OMAH leads
OMAH leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 3 evidence groups support OMAH, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF
Roundhill Investments - PLTR WeeklyPay ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors OMAH over PLTW, 59 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. OMAH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. OMAH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor OMAH today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. OMAH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
Compare VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF and Roundhill Investments - PLTR WeeklyPay ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
OMAH vs PLTW: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | OMAH | PLTW | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.95% | 0.99% | OMAH |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 75 | 5 | OMAH |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 15.37% | 67.97% | PLTW |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -9.5% | -70.2% | OMAH |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 9.3% | 72% | OMAH |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare OMAH and PLTW against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience63 vs 14OMAH +49
- Momentum72 vs 47OMAH +25
- Quality50 vs 39OMAH +11
2 of 3 evidence groups favor OMAH. OMAH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +13
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
OMAH's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — OMAH and PLTW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
OMAH (VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
PLTW (Roundhill Investments - PLTR WeeklyPay ETF): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 48.7% against 9.5%.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | OMAH | PLTW | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.99% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 75 | 5 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,089,645 | 163,542 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 9.3% | 72% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.5% | -70.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.88 | -0.56 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.21 | 2.36 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
OMAH vs PLTW: five-year payout growth
OMAH began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. PLTW began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | OMAH | PLTW |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $2.410 | $27.035 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | not ranked |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor OMAH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | OMAH | 59 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | PLTW | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs 4.6%; vs 200-day -1.6% vs 1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | OMAH | Risk Resilience 63 vs 14 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of OMAH and PLTW and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on OMAH.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20OMAH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- OMAH +23
- 59 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- OMAH +7
- 53 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- OMAH +1
- 47 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when OMAH moved ahead of PLTW.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only OMAH
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.76%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.79%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only PLTW
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.04%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.89%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
OMAH leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.17%, AIQ +3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +5.5%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1PLTW closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to OMAH's edge.
- 2PLTW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3OMAH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
OMAH leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | OMAH | PLTW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1% | -10.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.8% | 41.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.6% | 0.8% |
| Year to date | -3.1% | -34.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.4% | -45.6% |
Technicals
PLTW has the stronger structure| Metric | OMAH | PLTW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84.6 | 48.9 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | 4.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.6% | 1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.5% | 48.7% |
Risk
OMAH is the more resilient| Metric | OMAH | PLTW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.21 | 2.36 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.88 | -0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.18 | -0.99 |
| Max drawdown | -9.5% | -70.2% |
| Current drawdown | -6% | -51.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 9.3% | 72% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between OMAH and PLTW?
OMAH holds 75 positions to PLTW's 5.
Which ETF is more diversified, OMAH or PLTW?
OMAH holds more positions: 75 versus 5 for PLTW.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
OMAH has the lower expense ratio, 0.95% a year against 0.99% for PLTW.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
PLTW, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 67.97% against 15.37% for OMAH.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
PLTW has been more volatile over the past year, at 72% annualized against 9.3% for OMAH.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
OMAH fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -9.5% against -70.2% for PLTW.
Compare OMAH and PLTW with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.