CIBR vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 12, 2026

CIBR (First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - CIBR is a Cybersecurity fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CIBR returned 13.62%/yr vs 17.39%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CIBR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

CIBR vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIBR achieves a 19.83% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's -2.51% return.

CIBR

• 1D: 2.67%
• 1M: 14.20%
• YTD: 19.83%
• 6M: 13.32%
• 1Y: 18.11%
• 3Y*: 24.84%
• 5Y*: 13.62%
• 10Y*: 17.87%

GLDM

• 1D: 3.05%
• 1M: -10.81%
• YTD: -2.51%
• 6M: -1.65%
• 1Y: 25.59%
• 3Y*: 28.90%
• 5Y*: 17.39%
• 10Y*: —

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

CIBR vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	19.83%	13.06%	18.21%	39.71%	-26.46%	19.67%	50.53%	28.52%	-10.29%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	-2.51%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	25.10%	18.10%	1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between CIBR and GLDM is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.06
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.12
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2018	0.09

CIBR vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CIBR	GLDM
Technology	94.0%	-
Industrials	3.5%	-
Communication Services	2.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	100.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CIBR vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CIBR

CIBR Risk / Return Rank: 23
CIBR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
CIBR Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
CIBR Omega Ratio Rank: 25
CIBR Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
CIBR Martin Ratio Rank: 20

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 30
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 35
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM). 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	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.72	0.95	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.14	1.32	-0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.20	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.83	1.06	-0.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.94	3.08	-1.14

CIBR vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIBR Sharpe Ratio is 0.72, which is comparable to the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIBR and GLDM, 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. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIBR drawdown since its inception was -33.89%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -24.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIBR and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CIBR	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.89%	-24.35%	-9.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.99%	-24.35%	+2.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	-24.35%	+2.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.89%	-24.35%	-9.54%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.89%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.38%	-22.05%	+12.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.66%	-6.26%	-2.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.36%	8.33%	+1.03%

Volatility

CIBR vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) has a higher volatility of 12.35% compared to SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) at 7.71%. This indicates that CIBR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CIBR	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.35%	7.71%	+4.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.72%	23.93%	-2.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.16%	27.15%	-1.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.05%	18.13%	+6.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.65%	16.98%	+6.67%

CIBR vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIBR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIBR vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

CIBR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.48%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

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%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CIBR and GLDM in my portfolio?

CIBR and GLDM have a correlation of 0.06, 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 GLDM?

CIBR has higher volatility (12.35%) compared to GLDM (7.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CIBR dropped -33.89% vs GLDM's -24.35%.

Which ETF is better, CIBR or GLDM?

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 17.39% vs 13.62% for CIBR. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, GLDM has been the lower-risk option at 7.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CIBR or GLDM?

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 17.39% return vs 13.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CIBR or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CIBR.

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

CIBR has the higher dividend yield at 0.48%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between CIBR and GLDM?

CIBR is categorized as Cybersecurity, while GLDM is Gold. CIBR tracks Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CIBR and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.95 vs 0.72), 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.