CIBR vs VTI
First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, CIBR or VTI?
Mid Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. CIBR led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.9%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CIBR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $15.5B | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.39% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 88 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +46.38%Best | +13.10% |
| 1Y Return | +37.03%Best | +17.01% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +32.29%Best | +22.26% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.64%Best | +11.98% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.7% | 15.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -35.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $20,680Best | $17,608 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.9% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 7, 2015 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 7, 2015 to Sep 24, 2026 (11.2 years).
CIBR vs VTI growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 11.2 years both funds cover.
CIBR vs VTI Performance
First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CIBR returned +37.03% while VTI returned +17.01%. Year to date, CIBR is up 46.38% versus a gain of 13.10% for VTI.
Over three years, CIBR compounded at +32.29% per year against +22.26% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +15.64% and +11.98% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, CIBR has the edge at +15.99% annualized vs +12.59%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CIBR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.7% compared with 15.7% for VTI. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -33.9% for CIBR and -35.0% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.72. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CIBR charges 0.58% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $3 annually, a gap of $55 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CIBR currently yields 0.39% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
93.1% of CIBR's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 13.0% of VTI's money is in holdings CIBR also owns.
Most of CIBR is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
35 positions in common, counted across the 42 positions we hold weights for in CIBR and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 88 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,119 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for CIBR (84.5% of the fund), and 1 for CIBR that do not appear in VTI (0.1%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CIBR | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 9.68% | 0.38% | 9.30% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 9.02% | 0.26% | 8.76% |
| FTNTFortinet Inc | 8.84% | 0.14% | 8.70% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.91% | 2.56% | 3.35% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 6.54% | 0.57% | 5.97% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 2.01% | 4.79% | 2.78% |
| NETCloudflare Inc (180 Day Lockup) | 4.50% | 0.12% | 4.38% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 1.59% | 2.90% | 1.31% |
| OKTAOkta Inc. | 4.00% | 0.03% | 3.97% |
| ZSZscaler, Inc | 3.65% | 0.02% | 3.63% |
93.1% of CIBR is already inside VTI.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CIBR or VTI?
CIBR has an expense ratio of 0.58% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $55 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CIBR or VTI?
Over the past year CIBR returned +37.03% vs +17.01% for VTI, so CIBR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), CIBR annualized +15.99% vs +12.59% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CIBR or VTI?
CIBR has been the more volatile fund at 21.7% annualized versus 15.7% for VTI. Worst drawdown: CIBR -33.9% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both CIBR and VTI?
CIBR and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.72, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CIBR and VTI?
93.1% of CIBR's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 13.0% of VTI's is in holdings CIBR also owns. They hold 35 positions in common, counted across the 42 positions we hold weights for in CIBR and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, CIBR or VTI?
CIBR yields 0.39% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than CIBR?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. CIBR led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.