OMAH vs QQQI: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?

Overview

OMAH and QQQI are both actively managed options-income ETFs seeking high monthly distributions, but they deploy fundamentally different underlying strategies. OMAH targets a 15% annual yield by holding Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares plus the 20 largest positions from Berkshire's latest 13F filing, then layering an options overlay for cash flow. QQQI generates its 13.66% distribution by writing options against the Nasdaq-100 index constituents while positioning for tax efficiency. The key distinction: OMAH is a concentrated basket tied to a specific investor's (Berkshire's) disclosed holdings, while QQQI is a broad-based index strategy using derivatives.

How they differ

OMAH's strategy centers on Berkshire Hathaway and its disclosed equity portfolio—a 10% allocation to BRK.B anchors the fund, with the remaining 90% tracking Berkshire's top 20 U.S. stock holdings as of the latest 13F. QQQI, by contrast, writes options across the 100 constituents of the Nasdaq-100, generating income from volatility capture rather than portfolio-specific thesis. The yield gap reflects this: OMAH targets 15.05% versus QQQI's 13.66%, but OMAH carries a higher expense ratio (0.98% vs. 0.68%) and substantially lower AUM ($1.02B vs. $13.9B). Perhaps most importantly, OMAH's beta of 0.3287 suggests it dampens broad market swings, while QQQI's beta of 1.0553 moves closer to the underlying Nasdaq-100's direction—a structural difference rooted in their holdings.

Who each is best for

OMAH: Fits investors who want concentrated exposure to Berkshire Hathaway's investment thesis and can tolerate the concentration risk and relative illiquidity of a $1.02B AUM fund in exchange for a higher target yield and lower market beta.

QQQI: Fits investors seeking technology and growth-stock exposure paired with high income, who prioritize the liquidity and scale of a $13.9B fund and can accept market-correlated volatility in exchange for a slightly lower yield and lower expense ratio.

Key risks to know

• NAV erosion at sustained high yields. Both funds distribute 13–15% annually. If the underlying equity portfolios appreciate less than the distributions paid out, NAV will erode over time. This risk is especially acute for OMAH given its inaugural inception date (March 2025) and unproven track record in a full market cycle.

• Options overlay and tail-risk exposure. Both ETFs use covered calls and other derivatives to generate income. In a sharp market rally, short call positions cap upside; in a crash, the cushion from premium collected may prove insufficient. OMAH's lower beta suggests its options strategy may be more defensive, but neither fund is immune to sharp drawdowns.

• Concentration and portfolio drift for OMAH. OMAH's holdings are pinned to Berkshire's 13F—a quarterly snapshot. If Berkshire makes large portfolio shifts, OMAH may lag those moves or hold outdated positions. The 10% BRK.B weighting also means performance is inherently linked to one company's stock price and strategy.

• Nasdaq-100 momentum sensitivity for QQQI. QQQI's beta above 1.0 means it amplifies Nasdaq-100 moves. In a tech downturn, the fund's NAV can fall faster than the index itself, potentially forcing a choice between taking losses or accepting a lower yield if volatility collapses.

• Tax-efficiency claims require vetting. QQQI touts tax efficiency, but options-income strategies can trigger short-term capital gains and complex tax reporting. Actual tax outcomes depend on holding period and market conditions—not guaranteed by fund structure alone.

Bottom line

OMAH offers a concentrated, lower-volatility bet on Berkshire Hathaway's portfolio with a higher yield target; QQQI delivers diversified Nasdaq-100 exposure with broad index liquidity and slightly lower costs. If you want to follow a specific mega-cap investor's stock picks and can accept a much newer fund's unproven longevity, OMAH's higher yield and lower beta are notable. If you prefer established scale, diversification, and lower fees while maintaining tech-heavy equity upside, QQQI's larger AUM and tighter expense ratio may align better. Past performance does not predict future results, and both funds' high distributions carry the risk of eventual NAV erosion if underlying returns disappoint.