QMAR vs. CIBR
QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) and CIBR (First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust, while CIBR is a Technology Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. QMAR is actively managed, while CIBR is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QMAR returned 12.13%/yr vs 16.28%/yr for CIBR. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QMAR charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CIBR.
Performance
QMAR vs. CIBR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QMAR achieves a 13.06% return, which is significantly lower than CIBR's 28.52% return.
QMAR
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- 2.81%
- YTD
- 13.06%
- 6M
- 14.01%
- 1Y
- 23.38%
- 3Y*
- 16.73%
- 5Y*
- 12.13%
- 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%
QMAR vs. CIBR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 13.06% | 10.89% | 16.11% | 35.47% | -16.56% | 12.31% |
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF | 28.52% | 13.06% | 18.21% | 39.71% | -26.46% | 24.70% |
Correlation
The correlation between QMAR and CIBR is 0.53, 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 | 0.53 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.64 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.73 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021 | 0.73 |
Over the past year, the correlation between QMAR and CIBR has dropped to 0.53 - well below their long-term average of 0.73, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
QMAR vs. CIBR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QMAR
CIBR
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
QMAR
CIBR
Communication Services
QMAR
CIBR
Consumer Cyclical
QMAR
CIBR
-
Consumer Defensive
QMAR
CIBR
-
Healthcare
QMAR
CIBR
-
Industrials
QMAR
CIBR
Utilities
QMAR
CIBR
-
Basic Materials
QMAR
CIBR
-
Energy
QMAR
CIBR
-
Financial Services
QMAR
CIBR
-
Real Estate
QMAR
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
QMAR vs. CIBR — Risk / Return Rank
QMAR
CIBR
QMAR vs. CIBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) 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.
| QMAR | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.80 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +4.49 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.93 | 1.20 | +0.73 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 7.31 | 1.18 | +6.13 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 52.66 | 2.79 | +49.86 |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QMAR | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.86 | 1.06 | +2.80 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.87 | 0.66 | +0.22 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.79 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.91 | 0.67 | +0.24 |
Drawdowns
QMAR vs. CIBR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QMAR drawdown since its inception was -19.83%, smaller than the maximum CIBR drawdown of -33.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAR and CIBR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QMAR | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.83% | -33.89% | +14.06% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.21% | -21.99% | +18.78% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.91% | -21.99% | +6.08% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.83% | -33.89% | +14.06% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -33.89% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.19% | -2.81% | +2.62% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.28% | -8.66% | +5.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.45% | 9.25% | -8.80% |
Volatility
QMAR vs. CIBR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) is 1.27%, while First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) has a volatility of 10.90%. This indicates that QMAR 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
| QMAR | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.27% | 10.90% | -9.63% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.85% | 20.90% | -16.05% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.09% | 24.50% | -18.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.97% | 24.95% | -10.98% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.85% | 23.60% | -9.75% |
QMAR vs. CIBR - Expense Ratio Comparison
QMAR has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than CIBR's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
QMAR vs. CIBR - Dividend Comparison
QMAR 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% |
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 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
QMAR and CIBR have a correlation of 0.53, 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 QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMAR dropped -19.83% vs CIBR's -33.89%.
On 5-year performance, CIBR leads with 16.28% vs 12.13% for QMAR. On fees, CIBR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, CIBR has performed better with a 16.28% return vs 12.13%. 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 0.90% for QMAR.
CIBR has the higher dividend yield at 0.45%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.
QMAR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while CIBR is Technology Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMAR and 0.60% for CIBR.
QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 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.
Find the right allocation for QMAR 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