CIBR vs. FHLC

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

CIBR (First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF) and FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CIBR is a Cybersecurity fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index, while FHLC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CIBR returned 17.88%/yr vs 9.76%/yr for FHLC. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CIBR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FHLC.

Performance

CIBR vs. FHLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) and Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIBR achieves a 19.63% return, which is significantly higher than FHLC's 0.03% return. Over the past 10 years, CIBR has outperformed FHLC with an annualized return of 17.88%, while FHLC has yielded a comparatively lower 9.76% annualized return.

CIBR

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 7.94%
• YTD: 19.63%
• 6M: 15.68%
• 1Y: 18.53%
• 3Y*: 24.30%
• 5Y*: 13.58%
• 10Y*: 17.88%

FHLC

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 5.86%
• YTD: 0.03%
• 6M: 0.58%
• 1Y: 16.58%
• 3Y*: 7.18%
• 5Y*: 4.76%
• 10Y*: 9.76%

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

CIBR vs. FHLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	19.63%	13.06%	18.21%	39.71%	-26.46%	19.67%	50.53%	28.52%	1.47%	18.61%
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF	0.03%	15.42%	2.48%	2.58%	-5.55%	20.39%	18.13%	21.94%	4.71%	23.34%

Correlation

The correlation between CIBR and FHLC is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.11
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.30
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.46
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 7, 2015	0.55

Over the past year, the correlation between CIBR and FHLC has dropped to 0.11 - well below their long-term average of 0.55, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CIBR vs. FHLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CIBR	FHLC
Technology	95.4%	0.0%
Industrials	2.7%	0.0%
Communication Services	1.9%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.0%
Healthcare	-	99.6%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CIBR vs. FHLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CIBR

CIBR Risk / Return Rank: 21
CIBR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
CIBR Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
CIBR Omega Ratio Rank: 22
CIBR Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
CIBR Martin Ratio Rank: 19

FHLC

FHLC Risk / Return Rank: 34
FHLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
FHLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
FHLC Omega Ratio Rank: 32
FHLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
FHLC Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.

CIBR vs. FHLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) and Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC). 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.

	CIBR	FHLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.69	1.09	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.11	1.72	-0.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.19	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.79	1.55	-0.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.86	3.86	-2.00

CIBR vs. FHLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIBR Sharpe Ratio is 0.69, which is lower than the FHLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIBR and FHLC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CIBR vs. FHLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIBR drawdown since its inception was -33.89%, which is greater than FHLC's maximum drawdown of -28.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIBR and FHLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CIBR	FHLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.89%	-28.76%	-5.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.99%	-10.38%	-11.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	-16.87%	-5.12%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.89%	-17.73%	-16.16%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.89%	-28.76%	-5.13%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.53%	-3.15%	-6.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.66%	-5.19%	-3.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.38%	4.16%	+5.22%

Volatility

CIBR vs. FHLC - Volatility Comparison

First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) has a higher volatility of 12.35% compared to Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) at 4.87%. This indicates that CIBR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FHLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CIBR	FHLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.35%	4.87%	+7.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.72%	10.50%	+11.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.16%	14.69%	+10.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.04%	15.02%	+10.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.65%	16.84%	+6.81%

CIBR vs. FHLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIBR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FHLC's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIBR vs. FHLC - Dividend Comparison

CIBR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.48%, less than FHLC's 1.37% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	0.48%	0.42%	0.29%	0.42%	0.31%	0.59%	1.10%	0.23%	0.23%	0.10%	0.77%	0.58%
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF	1.37%	1.40%	1.51%	1.40%	1.30%	1.16%	1.45%	1.18%	1.38%	1.38%	1.40%	2.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CIBR and FHLC in my portfolio?

CIBR and FHLC have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CIBR or FHLC?

CIBR has higher volatility (12.35%) compared to FHLC (4.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CIBR dropped -33.89% vs FHLC's -28.76%.

Which ETF is better, CIBR or FHLC?

On 10-year performance, CIBR leads with 17.88% vs 9.76% for FHLC. On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FHLC has been the lower-risk option at 4.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CIBR or FHLC?

Over the 10-year period, CIBR has performed better with a 17.88% return vs 9.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CIBR or FHLC?

FHLC is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CIBR.

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

FHLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.37%, compared with 0.48% for CIBR.

What is the main difference between CIBR and FHLC?

CIBR is categorized as Cybersecurity, while FHLC is Health & Biotech Equities. CIBR tracks Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index, while FHLC tracks MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CIBR and 0.08% for FHLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FHLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.09 vs 0.69), 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.