OMAH vs VTI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
OMAH and VTI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. OMAH is VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF, while VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 75 for OMAH. OMAH is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTI ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 59.
What is the main difference between OMAH and VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to OMAH's 75, and 15% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | OMAH | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 75 | 3,524 |
| Top-10 concentration | 58.5% | 33.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 15.37% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 1,089,645 | 3,115,564 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -3.4% | +15.8% |
| YTD return | -3.1% | +12.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 9.3% | 13% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.5% | -9.2% |
| Beta | 0.21 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.88 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.18 | 1.32 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 72/100 | 51/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 63/100 | 86/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
VTI leads
VTI leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support VTI, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTI over OMAH, 60 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. VTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while OMAH holds the stronger momentum profile. VTI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. VTI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
OMAH vs VTI: 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 | VTI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.95% | 0.03% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 75 | 3,524 | VTI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 58.5% | 33.2% | VTI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 15.37% | 1.05% | OMAH |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -9.5% | -9.2% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 9.3% | 13% | 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 VTI 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.
- Quality50 vs 74VTI +24
- Risk Resilience63 vs 86VTI +23
- Momentum72 vs 51OMAH +21
- Value55 vs 42OMAH +13
2 of 4 evidence groups favor VTI. VTI’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; OMAH keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
VTI's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — OMAH and VTI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VTI (Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
OMAH (VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation.
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 | VTI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 75 | 3,524 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,089,645 | 3,115,564 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 9.3% | 13% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.5% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.88 | 0.86 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.21 | 1.02 | 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 VTI share 15.1% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings.
1 holding is unique to OMAH, and 3,478 holdings are unique to VTI. 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 33.24% for VTI (75 holdings vs 3,524). 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 | VTI | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple Inc | 10.07% | 6.29% | 6.29% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 4.25% | 2.9% | 2.9% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 4.25% | 2.31% | 2.31% |
| BRK-BBerkshire Hathaway Inc | 9.84% | 1.28% | 1.28% |
| BACBank of America Corp | 4.24% | 0.55% | 0.55% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 4.67% | 0.52% | 0.52% |
| KOCoca-Cola Co/The | 4.75% | 0.42% | 0.42% |
| AXPAmerican Express Co | 6.59% | 0.25% | 0.25% |
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 VTI doesn’t
| Holding | OMAH | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| BRK-BBerkshire Hathaway Inc | 9.84% | 1.28% |
| AXPAmerican Express Co | 6.59% | 0.25% |
| KOCoca-Cola Co/The | 4.75% | 0.42% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 4.67% | 0.52% |
| OXYOccidental Petroleum Corp | 4.66% | 0.06% |
| VRSNVeriSign Inc | 4.55% | 0.03% |
What VTI adds that OMAH doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | OMAH |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.4% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.79% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 3.65% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.56% | Not held |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.7% | Not held |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co | 1.35% | 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 VTI: five-year payout growth
VTI grew its split-adjusted payout at 6.28% a year over 2020-2025. OMAH began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | OMAH | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $2.410 | $3.757 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #81 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 VTI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 59 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | OMAH | Value 55 vs 42 |
| Technicals | VTI | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs 0.2%; vs 200-day -1.6% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | VTI | Risk Resilience 63 vs 86 |
| 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 VTI 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 VTI.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20VTI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTI +1
- 59 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- VTI +6
- 53 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- VTI +13
- 47 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VTI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.66%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Compression.
VTI 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, 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.
- 1OMAH closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTI's edge.
- 2OMAH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate VTI's advantage entirely.
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
VTI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | OMAH | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.8% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.6% | 8.4% |
| Year to date | -3.1% | 12.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.4% | 15.8% |
Technicals
VTI has the stronger structure| Metric | OMAH | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84.6 | 55.2 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 13.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | 0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.6% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.5% | 9.8% |
Risk
VTI is the more resilient| Metric | OMAH | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.21 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.88 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.18 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -9.5% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -6% | -1.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 9.3% | 13% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between OMAH and VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to OMAH's 75, and 15% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do OMAH and VTI overlap?
OMAH and VTI share 15.1% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings. 1 holding is unique to OMAH, and 3,478 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, OMAH or VTI?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 75 for OMAH.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.95% for OMAH.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
OMAH, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 15.37% against 1.05% for VTI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VTI has been more volatile over the past year, at 13% annualized against 9.3% for OMAH.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -9.5% for OMAH and -9.2% for VTI.
Compare OMAH and VTI 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.