AFLG vs. CIBR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AFLG (First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF) and CIBR (First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AFLG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta U.S. Large Cap Equity Index, while CIBR is a Technology Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AFLG returned 12.91%/yr vs 16.28%/yr for CIBR. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AFLG charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CIBR.

Performance

AFLG vs. CIBR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF (AFLG) and First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFLG achieves a 12.37% return, which is significantly lower than CIBR's 28.52% return.

AFLG

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: 3.98%
• YTD: 12.37%
• 6M: 12.19%
• 1Y: 24.98%
• 3Y*: 22.74%
• 5Y*: 12.91%
• 10Y*: —

CIBR

• 1D: -2.81%
• 1M: 31.43%
• YTD: 28.52%
• 6M: 24.03%
• 1Y: 25.78%
• 3Y*: 28.32%
• 5Y*: 16.28%
• 10Y*: 18.49%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AFLG vs. CIBR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AFLG First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF	12.37%	14.23%	27.02%	20.10%	-16.41%	27.29%	10.31%	2.77%
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	28.52%	13.06%	18.21%	39.71%	-26.46%	19.67%	50.53%	0.63%

Correlation

The correlation between AFLG and CIBR is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.67
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 5, 2019	0.70

The correlation between AFLG and CIBR shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (1 year) to 0.71 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

AFLG vs. CIBR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AFLG	CIBR
Technology	33.6%	94.0%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	-
Communication Services	10.1%	2.6%
Financial Services	10.0%	-
Industrials	9.4%	3.5%
Healthcare	7.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	-
Utilities	4.1%	-
Real Estate	3.8%	-
Basic Materials	3.6%	-
Energy	3.2%	-

Return for Risk

AFLG vs. CIBR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AFLG

AFLG Risk / Return Rank: 67
AFLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
AFLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
AFLG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
AFLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
AFLG Martin Ratio Rank: 74

CIBR

CIBR Risk / Return Rank: 26
CIBR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CIBR Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
CIBR Omega Ratio Rank: 29
CIBR Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
CIBR Martin Ratio Rank: 22

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AFLG vs. CIBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF (AFLG) and First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	AFLG	CIBR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.19	1.06	+1.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.07	1.56	+1.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.20	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.06	1.18	+1.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.04	2.79	+11.25
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AFLG vs. CIBR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is higher than the CIBR Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFLG and CIBR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AFLG	CIBR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.19	1.06	+1.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82	0.66	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.79	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.74	0.67	+0.07

Drawdowns

AFLG vs. CIBR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFLG drawdown since its inception was -35.84%, which is greater than CIBR's maximum drawdown of -33.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFLG and CIBR.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFLG	CIBR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.84%	-33.89%	-1.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.19%	-21.99%	+13.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.49%	-21.99%	+4.50%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.48%	-33.89%	+10.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.53%	-2.81%	+2.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.71%	-8.66%	+2.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.78%	9.25%	-7.47%

Volatility

AFLG vs. CIBR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF (AFLG) is 2.86%, while First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) has a volatility of 10.90%. This indicates that AFLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CIBR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AFLG	CIBR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.86%	10.90%	-8.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.81%	20.90%	-12.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.47%	24.50%	-13.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.82%	24.95%	-9.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.20%	23.60%	-4.40%

AFLG vs. CIBR - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFLG has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than CIBR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFLG vs. CIBR - Dividend Comparison

AFLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, more than CIBR's 0.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AFLG First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF	0.70%	0.84%	0.53%	1.53%	1.52%	0.93%	1.28%	0.20%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	0.45%	0.42%	0.29%	0.42%	0.31%	0.59%	1.10%	0.23%	0.23%	0.10%	0.77%	0.58%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AFLG and CIBR in my portfolio?

AFLG and CIBR have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AFLG or CIBR?

CIBR has higher volatility (10.90%) compared to AFLG (2.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFLG dropped -35.84% vs CIBR's -33.89%.

Which ETF is better, AFLG or CIBR?

On 5-year performance, CIBR leads with 16.28% vs 12.91% for AFLG. On fees, AFLG is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, AFLG has been the lower-risk option at 2.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AFLG or CIBR?

Over the 5-year period, CIBR has performed better with a 16.28% return vs 12.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFLG or CIBR?

AFLG is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CIBR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AFLG or CIBR?

AFLG has the higher dividend yield at 0.70%, compared with 0.45% for CIBR.

What is the main difference between AFLG and CIBR?

AFLG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while CIBR is Technology Equities. AFLG tracks Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta U.S. Large Cap Equity Index, while CIBR tracks Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for AFLG and 0.60% for CIBR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AFLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 1.06), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.