QCJA vs. CIBR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QCJA (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January) and CIBR (First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QCJA is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while CIBR is a Technology Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. QCJA is actively managed, while CIBR is passively managed. Over the past year, QCJA returned 15.75% vs 25.78% for CIBR. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QCJA charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CIBR.

Performance

QCJA vs. CIBR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) 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, QCJA achieves a 5.92% return, which is significantly lower than CIBR's 28.52% return.

QCJA

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.12%
• YTD: 5.92%
• 6M: 6.91%
• 1Y: 15.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

QCJA vs. CIBR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	5.92%	10.69%
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	28.52%	8.33%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJA and CIBR is 0.56, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2025	0.64

The correlation between QCJA and CIBR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCJA vs. CIBR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCJA

QCJA Risk / Return Rank: 81
QCJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
QCJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
QCJA Omega Ratio Rank: 89
QCJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
QCJA Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

QCJA vs. CIBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) 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.

	QCJA	CIBR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	1.06	+1.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.00	1.56	+2.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.20	+0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.18	1.18	+2.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.46	2.79	+12.66
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QCJA vs. CIBR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJA Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is higher than the CIBR Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJA 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

	QCJA	CIBR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74	1.06	+1.69
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.79	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.31	0.67	+0.64

Drawdowns

QCJA vs. CIBR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJA drawdown since its inception was -10.67%, smaller than the maximum CIBR drawdown of -33.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJA and CIBR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJA	CIBR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.67%	-33.89%	+23.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.98%	-21.99%	+17.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-21.99%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.89%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.10%	-2.81%	+2.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.19%	-8.66%	+7.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.02%	9.25%	-8.23%

Volatility

QCJA vs. CIBR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) is 0.83%, while First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) has a volatility of 10.90%. This indicates that QCJA 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

	QCJA	CIBR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.83%	10.90%	-10.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.62%	20.90%	-16.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.78%	24.50%	-18.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.48%	24.95%	-15.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.48%	23.60%	-14.12%

QCJA vs. CIBR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCJA has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than CIBR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCJA vs. CIBR - Dividend Comparison

QCJA has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CIBR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.45%.

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%
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	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 QCJA and CIBR in my portfolio?

QCJA and CIBR have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCJA or CIBR?

CIBR has higher volatility (10.90%) compared to QCJA (0.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJA dropped -10.67% vs CIBR's -33.89%.

Which ETF is better, QCJA or CIBR?

On 1-year performance, CIBR leads with 25.78% vs 15.75% for QCJA. On fees, CIBR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QCJA has been the lower-risk option at 0.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCJA or CIBR?

Over the 1-year period, CIBR has performed better with a 25.78% return vs 15.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJA or CIBR?

CIBR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJA.

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

CIBR has the higher dividend yield at 0.45%, compared with 0.00% for QCJA.

What is the main difference between QCJA and CIBR?

QCJA is categorized as Defined Outcome, while CIBR is Technology Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCJA and 0.60% for CIBR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCJA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 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.