BFOC vs. CIBR
BFOC (FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October) and CIBR (First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BFOC is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while CIBR is a Cybersecurity fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. BFOC is actively managed, while CIBR is passively managed. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BFOC charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CIBR.
Performance
BFOC vs. CIBR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BFOC achieves a -7.58% return, which is significantly lower than CIBR's 18.06% return.
BFOC
- 1D
- -0.67%
- 1M
- -1.05%
- YTD
- -7.58%
- 6M
- -7.79%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CIBR
- 1D
- 0.75%
- 1M
- -0.08%
- YTD
- 18.06%
- 6M
- 15.86%
- 1Y
- 15.20%
- 3Y*
- 24.74%
- 5Y*
- 12.80%
- 10Y*
- 17.93%
BFOC vs. CIBR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BFOC FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October | -7.58% | -9.75% |
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF | 18.06% | -5.74% |
Correlation
The correlation between BFOC and CIBR is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2025 | 0.33 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BFOC vs. CIBR — Risk / Return Rank
BFOC
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
CIBR
BFOC vs. CIBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October (BFOC) 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| BFOC | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.12 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.69 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 1.60 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BFOC vs. CIBR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BFOC drawdown since its inception was -18.41%, smaller than the maximum CIBR drawdown of -33.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFOC and CIBR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BFOC | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.41% | -33.89% | +15.48% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -21.99% | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.36% | -10.72% | -7.64% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.84% | -8.66% | -4.18% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 9.51% | — |
Volatility
BFOC vs. CIBR - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BFOC | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 12.03% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 21.54% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.31% | 25.21% | -12.90% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.31% | 25.07% | -12.76% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.31% | 23.60% | -11.29% |
BFOC vs. CIBR - Expense Ratio Comparison
BFOC has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than CIBR's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
BFOC vs. CIBR - Dividend Comparison
BFOC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CIBR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.49%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BFOC FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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 | 0.49% | 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
BFOC and CIBR have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CIBR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CIBR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BFOC.
CIBR has the higher dividend yield at 0.49%, compared with 0.00% for BFOC.
BFOC is categorized as Defined Outcome, while CIBR is Cybersecurity. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for BFOC and 0.60% for CIBR.
Find the right allocation for BFOC and CIBR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer