GLDM vs. CIBR

Last updated Jun 12, 2026

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

Performance

GLDM vs. CIBR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) 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, GLDM achieves a -2.51% return, which is significantly lower than CIBR's 19.83% return.

GLDM

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

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%

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

GLDM vs. CIBR - Yearly Performance Comparison

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

Correlation

The correlation between GLDM and CIBR 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

GLDM vs. CIBR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

GLDM vs. CIBR — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

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

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.

GLDM vs. CIBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) 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.

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.

	GLDM	CIBR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.95	0.72	+0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.32	1.14	+0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.14	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.06	0.83	+0.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.08	1.94	+1.14

GLDM vs. CIBR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDM Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is higher than the CIBR Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDM 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.

Drawdowns

GLDM vs. CIBR - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

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

Volatility

GLDM vs. CIBR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) is 7.71%, while First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) has a volatility of 12.35%. This indicates that GLDM 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

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

GLDM vs. CIBR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

GLDM vs. CIBR - Dividend Comparison

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

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 GLDM and CIBR in my portfolio?

GLDM and CIBR 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, GLDM or CIBR?

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

Which ETF is better, GLDM or CIBR?

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, GLDM or CIBR?

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, GLDM or CIBR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between GLDM and CIBR?

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

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.