OMAH vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
OMAH and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. OMAH is VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 107 positions versus 75 for OMAH. OMAH is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has OMAH ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 50.
What is the main difference between OMAH and QQQ?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while OMAH spreads across 8 sectors with none above 32%.
| Metric | OMAH | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 75 | 107 |
| Top-10 concentration | 58.5% | 47% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 15.27% | 0.44% |
| Average volume | 1,093,442 | 37,499,418 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -5.3% | +15.2% |
| YTD return | -2.5% | +14.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 9.3% | 20.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.5% | -12.2% |
| Beta | 0.20 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.92 | 0.66 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.25 | 1.02 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 50/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 72/100 | 15/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 63/100 | 69/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
OMAH leads
OMAH leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support OMAH, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors OMAH over QQQ, 59 versus 50 as of Oct 24, 2026. OMAH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. OMAH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor OMAH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. OMAH lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 19 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; OMAH now leads by 9.
Compare VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
OMAH vs QQQ: 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 | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.95% | 0.18% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 75 | 107 | QQQ |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 58.5% | 47% | QQQ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 15.27% | 0.44% | OMAH |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -9.5% | -12.2% | OMAH |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 9.3% | 20.1% | 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 QQQ 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.
- Momentum72 vs 15OMAH +57
- Quality50 vs 82QQQ +32
- Value55 vs 36OMAH +19
- Risk Resilience63 vs 69QQQ +6
2 of 4 evidence groups favor OMAH. OMAH’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QQQ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
OMAH's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — OMAH and QQQ 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 momentum and value.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience — but at materially higher volatility, 18.4% against 10.3%.
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 | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 75 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,093,442 | 37,499,418 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 9.3% | 20.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.5% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.92 | 0.66 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.20 | 1.45 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
OMAH and QQQ share 13.85% of their weighted exposure across 4 common holdings.
18 holdings are unique to OMAH, and 98 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
OMAH is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 58.52% of the fund, against 46.96% for QQQ (75 holdings vs 107). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | OMAH | QQQ | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple Inc | 10.07% | 7.71% | 7.71% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 4.25% | 3.11% | 3.11% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 4.25% | 2.9% | 2.9% |
| KHCKraft Heinz Co/The | 4.33% | 0.13% | 0.13% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What OMAH adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | OMAH | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| BRK-BBerkshire Hathaway Inc | 9.84% | Not held |
| AXPAmerican Express Co | 6.59% | Not held |
| KOCoca-Cola Co/The | 4.75% | Not held |
| CVXChevron Corp | 4.67% | Not held |
| OXYOccidental Petroleum Corp | 4.66% | Not held |
| VRSNVeriSign Inc | 4.55% | Not held |
What QQQ adds that OMAH doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | OMAH |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.49% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.88% | Not held |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.89% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.36% | Not held |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.64% | Not held |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.07% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
OMAH vs QQQ: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout at 9.99% a year over 2020-2025. OMAH began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | OMAH | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $2.410 | $2.795 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #56 of 138 |
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 4 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 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | OMAH | Value 55 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.9% vs -3%; vs 200-day -0.9% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 63 vs 69 |
| 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 QQQ and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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
48 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 23OMAH lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 19 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; OMAH now leads by 9.
- Today
- OMAH +9
- 59 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +5
- 52 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +19
- 48 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when OMAH moved ahead of QQQ.
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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.79%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.82%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.16%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.65%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.01%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to OMAH's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 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
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | OMAH | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.6% | -5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.4% | 3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.1% | 6.1% |
| Year to date | -2.5% | 14.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5.3% | 15.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | OMAH | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83.7 | 24 |
| ADX (14) | 26.1 | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.9% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.9% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10.3% | 18.4% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | OMAH | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.2 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.92 | 0.66 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.25 | 1.02 |
| Max drawdown | -9.5% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.4% | -7.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 9.3% | 20.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between OMAH and QQQ?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while OMAH spreads across 8 sectors with none above 32%.
How much do OMAH and QQQ overlap?
OMAH and QQQ share 13.85% of their weighted exposure across 4 common holdings. 18 holdings are unique to OMAH, and 98 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, OMAH or QQQ?
QQQ holds more positions: 107 versus 75 for OMAH.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.95% for OMAH.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
OMAH, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 15.27% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQ has been more volatile over the past year, at 20.1% 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 -12.2% for QQQ.
Compare OMAH and QQQ 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.