BFAP vs. CIBR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BFAP (FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April) and CIBR (First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BFAP is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by First Trust, while CIBR is a Technology Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. BFAP is actively managed, while CIBR is passively managed. Over the past year, BFAP returned -24.44% vs 25.78% for CIBR. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BFAP charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CIBR.

Performance

BFAP vs. CIBR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April (BFAP) 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, BFAP achieves a -20.89% return, which is significantly lower than CIBR's 28.52% return.

BFAP

• 1D: -1.05%
• 1M: -7.01%
• YTD: -20.89%
• 6M: -23.66%
• 1Y: -24.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

BFAP vs. CIBR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BFAP FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April	-20.89%	8.90%
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	28.52%	24.67%

Correlation

The correlation between BFAP and CIBR is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2025	0.32

Return for Risk

BFAP vs. CIBR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BFAP

BFAP Risk / Return Rank: 1
BFAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
BFAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
BFAP Omega Ratio Rank: 1
BFAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
BFAP Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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.

BFAP vs. CIBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April (BFAP) 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.

	BFAP	CIBR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.15	1.06	-2.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.58	1.56	-3.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.81	1.20	-0.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.79	1.18	-1.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.45	2.79	-4.24
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BFAP vs. CIBR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BFAP Sharpe Ratio is -1.15, which is lower than the CIBR Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BFAP 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

	BFAP	CIBR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-1.15	1.06	-2.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.79	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.59	0.67	-1.26

Drawdowns

BFAP vs. CIBR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BFAP drawdown since its inception was -31.25%, smaller than the maximum CIBR drawdown of -33.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFAP and CIBR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BFAP	CIBR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.25%	-33.89%	+2.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.25%	-21.99%	-9.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-21.99%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.89%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.25%	-2.81%	-28.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.77%	-8.66%	-2.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.89%	9.25%	+7.64%

Volatility

BFAP vs. CIBR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April (BFAP) is 3.59%, while First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) has a volatility of 10.90%. This indicates that BFAP 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

	BFAP	CIBR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.59%	10.90%	-7.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.66%	20.90%	-3.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.26%	24.50%	-3.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.57%	24.95%	-4.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.57%	23.60%	-3.03%

BFAP vs. CIBR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BFAP has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than CIBR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

BFAP vs. CIBR - Dividend Comparison

BFAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 23.98%, more than CIBR's 0.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BFAP FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April	23.98%	18.97%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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 BFAP and CIBR in my portfolio?

BFAP and CIBR have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BFAP or CIBR?

CIBR has higher volatility (10.90%) compared to BFAP (3.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BFAP dropped -31.25% vs CIBR's -33.89%.

Which ETF is better, BFAP or CIBR?

On 1-year performance, CIBR leads with 25.78% vs -24.44% for BFAP. On fees, CIBR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, BFAP has been the lower-risk option at 3.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BFAP or CIBR?

Over the 1-year period, CIBR has performed better with a 25.78% return vs -24.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BFAP or CIBR?

CIBR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BFAP.

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

BFAP has the higher dividend yield at 23.98%, compared with 0.45% for CIBR.

What is the main difference between BFAP and CIBR?

BFAP is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while CIBR is Technology Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for BFAP and 0.60% for CIBR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CIBR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.06 vs -1.15), 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.