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

Overview

All three are actively managed or derivative-overlay ETFs that generate high monthly income through options strategies on different underlying exposures. OMAH targets a 15% yield by writing calls on a single concentrated position—Berkshire Hathaway Class B—while QQQI and SPYI use similar call-overlay tactics on the Nasdaq-100 and S&P 500, respectively. The key distinction is concentration: OMAH bets on one stock's performance, while QQQI and SPYI diversify across 100 and 500 stocks, though at different risk profiles.

How they differ

The most significant difference is underlying exposure. OMAH owns only Berkshire Hathaway shares and a call overlay; QQQI tracks the Nasdaq-100 (heavily weighted to large-cap tech); and SPYI owns the S&P 500. This drives their beta profiles: OMAH is the most defensive at 0.3287, SPYI sits near market at 0.69, and QQQI is the most volatile at 1.0553.

All three pursue options income, but the target yield varies. OMAH explicitly targets 15% annually and currently delivers 14.99%; QQQI trails at 14.25%; and SPYI lags both at 12.21%. The fee structures are nearly identical—SPYI and QQQI both charge 0.68%, while OMAH is slightly higher at 0.95%—but OMAH's much smaller AUM of $831M versus $12.5B for QQQI and $6.20B for SPYI suggests less institutional adoption despite its higher yield target.

SPYI has the longest track record, launching in August 2022; QQQI followed in January 2024; and OMAH is the newest, having started trading in March 2025. The age difference matters for evaluating whether these yield levels are sustainable through a full market cycle.

Who each is best for

• OMAH: Fits investors with high conviction in Berkshire Hathaway's long-term performance who prioritize maximum income and accept single-stock concentration risk in exchange for a yield target near 15%.

• QQQI: Designed for growth-tilted income seekers comfortable with technology-heavy exposure and volatility around 1.0x the broader market, willing to trade some yield (14.25%) for broader diversification than a single-stock play.

• SPYI: Suits conservative income investors who want monthly cash flow from a broad market foundation, accepting lower yield (12.21%) in exchange for lower volatility (0.69 beta) and a longer operating history.

Key risks to know

• NAV erosion at yields exceeding 12%: All three funds distribute more than typical broad-market equity returns, creating structural pressure on NAV unless underlying capital appreciation or call premium consistently offsets payout. The longer SPYI's track record (since August 2022) provides more data; OMAH and QQQI have operated through limited time windows.

• Single-stock concentration in OMAH: Berkshire Hathaway represents 100% of OMAH's equity holdings. A negative event affecting Berkshire—regulatory pressure, leadership transition, or a significant underperformance versus the S&P 500—directly crushes the fund's performance without diversification cushion.

• Call-writing cap risk: When market valuations rise sharply, all three funds' covered call overlays typically cap upside as shares are called away. Conversely, in steep downturns, the call premium collected provides only partial cushion. QQQI's higher beta (1.0553) makes this asymmetry more pronounced than SPYI's (0.69).

• Sustainability of premium yields: OMAH's explicit 15% target and QQQI's 14.25% both exceed long-term historical equity returns. Sustaining these distributions depends on consistent call premium capture and underlying capital gains, a combination that may not hold through all market environments.

Bottom line

If you prioritize maximum income and have conviction in Berkshire Hathaway specifically, OMAH's 14.99% yield and lower volatility stand out—but you're betting on one stock. If you want technology exposure with high income, QQQI offers broader diversification at 14.25% yield and higher volatility. If you prefer broad-market exposure with lower risk and a longer operating track record, SPYI's 12.21% yield and 0.69 beta appeal to more conservative portfolios. Past performance, especially across funds with such recent inception dates, does not predict future distributions or NAV stability.