PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FTDS vs. CIBR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FTDS vs. CIBR - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FTDS achieves a 6.54% return, which is significantly lower than CIBR's 28.52% return. Over the past 10 years, FTDS has underperformed CIBR with an annualized return of 10.75%, while CIBR has yielded a comparatively higher 18.49% annualized return.


FTDS

1D
-0.21%
1M
-2.16%
YTD
6.54%
6M
6.72%
1Y
18.40%
3Y*
16.04%
5Y*
6.32%
10Y*
10.75%

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)

FTDS vs. CIBR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FTDS
First Trust Dividend Strength ETF
6.54%13.64%11.12%11.75%-13.54%24.79%14.16%24.29%-10.35%20.07%
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 FTDS and CIBR is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.24

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.40

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.52

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2015

0.52

Over the past year, the correlation between FTDS and CIBR has dropped to 0.24 - well below their long-term average of 0.52, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FTDS vs. CIBR - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FTDS
CIBR

Financial Services

27.9%

-

Energy

20.2%

-

Industrials

19.8%
3.5%

Healthcare

9.4%

-

Technology

9.4%
94.0%

Basic Materials

8.0%

-

Consumer Cyclical

3.4%

-

Consumer Defensive

1.9%

-

Communication Services

-

2.6%

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

FTDS
27.9%
CIBR

-

Energy

FTDS
20.2%
CIBR

-

Industrials

FTDS
19.8%
CIBR
3.5%

Healthcare

FTDS
9.4%
CIBR

-

Technology

FTDS
9.4%
CIBR
94.0%

Basic Materials

FTDS
8.0%
CIBR

-

Consumer Cyclical

FTDS
3.4%
CIBR

-

Consumer Defensive

FTDS
1.9%
CIBR

-

Communication Services

FTDS

-

CIBR
2.6%

Real Estate

FTDS

-

CIBR

-

Utilities

FTDS

-

CIBR

-

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

FTDS vs. CIBR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FTDS
FTDS Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
FTDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FTDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
FTDS Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
FTDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
FTDS Martin Ratio Rank: 4646
Martin Ratio Rank

CIBR
CIBR Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
CIBR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIBR Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIBR Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
CIBR Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIBR Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FTDS vs. CIBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Dividend Strength ETF (FTDS) 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.


FTDSCIBRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.38

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.62

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.20

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.81

1.18

+1.63

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.56

2.79

+4.77

FTDS vs. CIBR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FTDS Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is higher than the CIBR Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FTDS 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FTDSCIBRDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.44

1.06

+0.38

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.36

0.66

-0.30

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.54

0.79

-0.25

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.32

0.67

-0.35

Drawdowns

FTDS vs. CIBR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FTDS drawdown since its inception was -56.53%, which is greater than CIBR's maximum drawdown of -33.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTDS and CIBR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FTDSCIBRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.53%

-33.89%

-22.64%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.57%

-21.99%

+15.42%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.04%

-21.99%

+3.95%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.35%

-33.89%

+10.54%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.47%

-33.89%

-8.58%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.46%

-2.81%

-1.65%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.87%

-8.66%

-1.21%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.44%

9.25%

-6.81%

Volatility

FTDS vs. CIBR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Dividend Strength ETF (FTDS) is 3.48%, while First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) has a volatility of 10.90%. This indicates that FTDS 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FTDSCIBRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.48%

10.90%

-7.42%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.87%

20.90%

-12.03%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.92%

24.50%

-11.58%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.65%

24.95%

-7.30%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.14%

23.60%

-3.46%

FTDS vs. CIBR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

FTDS vs. CIBR - Dividend Comparison

FTDS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.66%, more than CIBR's 0.45% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
FTDS
First Trust Dividend Strength ETF
1.66%1.59%2.05%2.15%2.31%0.72%0.99%1.13%1.14%0.79%1.24%0.95%

Frequently Asked Questions


FTDS and CIBR have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CIBR has higher volatility (10.90%) compared to FTDS (3.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FTDS dropped -56.53% vs CIBR's -33.89%.

On 10-year performance, CIBR leads with 18.49% vs 10.75% for FTDS. On fees, CIBR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, FTDS has been the lower-risk option at 3.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, CIBR has performed better with a 18.49% return vs 10.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

FTDS has the higher dividend yield at 1.66%, compared with 0.45% for CIBR.

FTDS is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while CIBR is Technology Equities. FTDS tracks Dividend Strength Index, while CIBR tracks Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FTDS and 0.60% for CIBR.

FTDS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.44 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FTDS 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