FLM vs. CIBR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLM (First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF) and CIBR (First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLM is a Building & Construction fund tracking the ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while CIBR is a Technology Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FLM returned 8.40%/yr vs 18.49%/yr for CIBR. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLM charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CIBR.

Performance

FLM vs. CIBR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) 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, FLM achieves a 19.89% return, which is significantly lower than CIBR's 28.52% return. Over the past 10 years, FLM has underperformed CIBR with an annualized return of 8.40%, while CIBR has yielded a comparatively higher 18.49% annualized return.

FLM

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 0.95%
• YTD: 19.89%
• 6M: 18.51%
• 1Y: 28.68%
• 3Y*: 22.72%
• 5Y*: 10.76%
• 10Y*: 8.40%

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)

FLM vs. CIBR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	19.89%	13.99%	17.94%	19.36%	-9.87%	12.98%	0.51%	12.81%	-21.72%	22.95%
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	28.52%	13.06%	18.21%	39.71%	-26.46%	19.67%	50.53%	28.52%	1.47%	18.61%

Correlation

The correlation between FLM and CIBR is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.53
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2015	0.52

The correlation between FLM and CIBR shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (1 year) to 0.58 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FLM vs. CIBR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLM	CIBR
Industrials	37.1%	3.5%
Energy	8.1%	-
Technology	7.9%	94.0%
Basic Materials	7.4%	-
Real Estate	5.7%	-
Communication Services	0.7%	2.6%
Utilities	0.7%	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-

Return for Risk

FLM vs. CIBR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLM

FLM Risk / Return Rank: 68
FLM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
FLM Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
FLM Omega Ratio Rank: 60
FLM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
FLM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

FLM vs. CIBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) 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.

	FLM	CIBR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	1.06	+1.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	1.56	+1.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.20	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.01	1.18	+2.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.80	2.79	+11.01
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLM vs. CIBR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLM Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is higher than the CIBR Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLM 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

	FLM	CIBR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.15	1.06	+1.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64	0.66	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45	0.79	-0.34
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.38	0.67	-0.28

Drawdowns

FLM vs. CIBR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLM drawdown since its inception was -50.07%, which is greater than CIBR's maximum drawdown of -33.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLM and CIBR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLM	CIBR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.07%	-33.89%	-16.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.19%	-21.99%	+14.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.14%	-21.99%	+2.85%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.71%	-33.89%	+10.18%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-50.07%	-33.89%	-16.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.71%	-2.81%	+2.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.84%	-8.66%	-2.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.08%	9.25%	-7.17%

Volatility

FLM vs. CIBR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) is 4.27%, while First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) has a volatility of 10.90%. This indicates that FLM 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

	FLM	CIBR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.27%	10.90%	-6.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.39%	20.90%	-10.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.45%	24.50%	-11.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.82%	24.95%	-8.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.73%	23.60%	-4.87%

FLM vs. CIBR - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLM has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than CIBR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLM vs. CIBR - Dividend Comparison

FLM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, more than CIBR's 0.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	1.01%	1.19%	1.31%	1.16%	2.10%	1.45%	2.88%	1.84%	1.74%	1.49%	2.01%	1.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLM and CIBR in my portfolio?

FLM and CIBR have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLM or CIBR?

CIBR has higher volatility (10.90%) compared to FLM (4.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLM dropped -50.07% vs CIBR's -33.89%.

Which ETF is better, FLM or CIBR?

On 10-year performance, CIBR leads with 18.49% vs 8.40% for FLM. On fees, CIBR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, FLM has been the lower-risk option at 4.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLM or CIBR?

Over the 10-year period, CIBR has performed better with a 18.49% return vs 8.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLM or CIBR?

CIBR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for FLM.

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

FLM has the higher dividend yield at 1.01%, compared with 0.45% for CIBR.

What is the main difference between FLM and CIBR?

FLM is categorized as Building & Construction, while CIBR is Technology Equities. FLM tracks ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while CIBR tracks Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FLM and 0.60% for CIBR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 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.