FTGS vs. CIBR
Compare and contrast key facts about First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) and First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR).
FTGS and CIBR are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FTGS is a passively managed fund by First Trust that tracks the performance of the The Growth Strength Index - Benchmark TR Gross. It was launched on Oct 25, 2022. CIBR is a passively managed fund by First Trust that tracks the performance of the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. It was launched on Jul 7, 2015. Both FTGS and CIBR are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
FTGS vs. CIBR - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
FTGS vs. CIBR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FTGS First Trust Growth Strength ETF | -3.69% | 12.78% | 15.76% | 33.69% | 1.09% |
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF | -12.12% | 13.06% | 18.21% | 39.71% | -4.79% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FTGS achieves a -3.69% return, which is significantly higher than CIBR's -12.12% return.
FTGS
- 1D
- 2.76%
- 1M
- -5.56%
- YTD
- -3.69%
- 6M
- -5.18%
- 1Y
- 14.55%
- 3Y*
- 15.87%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CIBR
- 1D
- 3.11%
- 1M
- -0.19%
- YTD
- -12.12%
- 6M
- -17.17%
- 1Y
- 0.06%
- 3Y*
- 14.11%
- 5Y*
- 8.62%
- 10Y*
- 14.52%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
FTGS vs. CIBR - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both FTGS and CIBR have an expense ratio of 0.60%.
Return for Risk
FTGS vs. CIBR — Risk / Return Rank
FTGS
CIBR
FTGS vs. CIBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) 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.
| FTGS | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.74 | 0.00 | +0.74 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.21 | 0.17 | +1.04 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | 1.02 | +0.15 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.28 | -0.03 | +1.30 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.84 | -0.07 | +4.90 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FTGS | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.74 | 0.00 | +0.74 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.36 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.63 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.97 | 0.51 | +0.46 |
Correlation
The correlation between FTGS and CIBR is 0.75, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
FTGS vs. CIBR - Dividend Comparison
FTGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.10%, less than CIBR's 0.65% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FTGS First Trust Growth Strength ETF | 0.10% | 0.16% | 0.39% | 0.62% | 0.21% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF | 0.65% | 0.42% | 0.29% | 0.42% | 0.31% | 0.59% | 1.10% | 0.23% | 0.23% | 0.10% | 0.77% | 0.58% |
Drawdowns
FTGS vs. CIBR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FTGS drawdown since its inception was -19.99%, smaller than the maximum CIBR drawdown of -33.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTGS and CIBR.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| FTGS | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.99% | -33.89% | +13.90% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.83% | -21.96% | +10.13% |
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 | -6.92% | -19.50% | +12.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.80% | -8.66% | +5.86% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.12% | 8.02% | -4.90% |
Volatility
FTGS vs. CIBR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) is 5.51%, while First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) has a volatility of 7.04%. This indicates that FTGS 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 graphics...
Volatility by Period
| FTGS | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.51% | 7.04% | -1.53% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.24% | 16.45% | -6.21% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.62% | 24.46% | -4.84% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.33% | 24.21% | -6.88% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.33% | 23.22% | -5.89% |