IVV vs OMAH
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF
Which is better, IVV or OMAH?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | OMAH |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.98% |
| AUM | $850.0B | $1.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 15.42% |
| Holdings | 1,018 | 152 |
| YTD Return | +11.09%Best | +10.54% |
| 1Y Return | +11.71%Best | +11.55% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.10% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.55% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.7% | 7.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -14.6% | -11.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.7 years | $13,215Best | $11,848 |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | VistaShares |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 5, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 5, 2025 to Nov 9, 2026 (1.7 years).
IVV vs OMAH growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 1.7 years both funds cover.
IVV vs OMAH Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and VistaShares Target 15 Berkshire Select Income ETF (OMAH) is an ETF from VistaShares. Over the past year IVV returned +11.71% while OMAH returned +11.55%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.09% versus a gain of 10.54% for OMAH.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 11.7% compared with 7.4% for OMAH. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -14.6% for IVV and -11.8% for OMAH. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.34. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while OMAH charges 0.98%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $98 annually, a gap of $95 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 15.42% for OMAH.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and OMAH you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or OMAH?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while OMAH charges 0.98%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $95 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or OMAH?
Over the past year IVV returned +11.71% vs +11.55% for OMAH, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IVV annualized +17.82% vs +10.49% for OMAH. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or OMAH?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 11.7% annualized versus 7.4% for OMAH. Worst drawdown: IVV -14.6% vs OMAH -11.8%.
Should I hold both IVV and OMAH?
IVV and OMAH have a monthly-return correlation of 0.34, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or OMAH?
IVV yields 1.09% while OMAH yields 15.42%, so OMAH currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is OMAH better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.