CIBR vs SPAM: Grades, Fees and Holdings Compared

First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity ETF

CIBRBNasdaq

Themes Cybersecurity ETF

SPAMBNasdaq

Overlap

41.5%by weight

Expense ratio

SPAM −0.23pt a year

CIBR0.58%SPAM0.35%

Avg volume · 30D

CIBR 811.2×the volume

CIBR1.81MSPAM2.24K

CIBR vs SPAM Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Oct 30, 2026

+31.4%CIBR+34.7%SPAM

Expense ratio: CIBR 0.58%; SPAM 0.35%, better
Fund size: CIBR $17.5B; SPAM $7M
1Y total return: CIBR +31.4%; SPAM +34.7%, better
Yield (12M): CIBR 0.39%, better; SPAM 0.32%
Holdings: CIBR 46; SPAM 41
Avg volume (30D): CIBR 1.81M sh, better; SPAM 2.24K sh
NAV per share: CIBR $100.98; SPAM $46.87
52W range

ETF.net Grade

Pillar letters and Scores for CIBR, SPAM, with each pillar’s weight
Pillar	CIBR	SPAM
Cost30% weight	D31	A79Higher
Mission25% weight	A82	Not scored
Risk15% weight	B63Higher	C50
Tradability15% weight	A94Higher	F16
Holdings10% weight	B55	A70Higher
Durability5% weight	A92Higher	F16

Rank among Cybersecurity funds

How we build Categories ›

Same Category. CIBR and SPAM are both graded against the same 8 Cybersecurity funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Cybersecurity⁠

Category · 8 funds

See all 8 ›

CIBR ranks 4th and SPAM 5th of 8 funds in the Cybersecurity Category.

Rank 1BIHAKiShares Cybersecurity and Tech ETFScore 64
Rank 2BPSWDXtrackers Cybersecurity Select Equity ETFScore 59
Rank 3BXACorgi AI Cybersecurity ETFScore 58
Rank 4BCIBRFirst Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity ETFScore 57
Rank 5BSPAMThemes Cybersecurity ETFScore 55
Rank 6CWCBRWisdomTree Cybersecurity FundScore 53

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

CIBRBFirst Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity ETF

SPAMBThemes Cybersecurity ETF

In short

CIBR A 2015-vintage cybersecurity fund that grew into a multi-billion-dollar one. It tracks the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index with a tight basket of roughly 30 names, so every holding carries real weight.

SPAM Best ticker on the tape, and a genuinely cheap one: SPAM holds the 35 largest digital-security software companies for 0.35% a year, less than the typical cybersecurity fund. A concentrated, software-only cut of the theme.

Stated mandate

CIBR The fund seeks to track, before fees and expenses, the price and yield of the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index through an indexing approach. It normally invests at least 90% of net assets in the index's common stocks and depositary receipts.

SPAM The fund seeks to follow the Solactive Cyber Security Index, which selects the 35 largest digital-security software companies by market capitalization.

Why people hold it

CIBR Concentrated on purpose: roughly 30 stocks screened by the index as cybersecurity businesses, not a broad tech basket wearing a cyber label.
Size and turnover work in your favor here: a multi-billion-dollar fund that trades actively, which is what keeps spreads workable on a niche theme.
Runs to the rulebook: at least 90% of net assets in the index's common stocks and depositary receipts, and it has tracked that index closely.
Live since 2015, through multiple cyber hype cycles, and one of the stronger implementations in its peer group.

SPAM At 0.35% a year it comes in under the median cybersecurity ETF, and the group's bigger names (IHAK, CIBR, HACK, BUG) all charge more.
Pure play by design: the Solactive index selects the 35 largest digital-security software companies by market cap, so the theme is not padded out with loosely related hardware.
Roughly 40 holdings, rules-based and passive, spanning US and developed international security names. You can see exactly what you own and why it is in there.

Worth knowing

CIBR At 0.58% a year it sits above the 0.50% cybersecurity-ETF median, and cheaper shelves exist: IHAK at 0.47%, WCBR at 0.45%.
One theme, about 30 names. A few holdings drive the outcome, so this behaves like a slice of tech, not a diversified core.
Distributions land quarterly, but this is a growth-equity theme; the index tracks cybersecurity businesses, not payout streams.

SPAM Assets are small and the shares trade thinly, which typically means wider spreads. Limit orders are standard practice at this size.
It launched in December 2023, so the track record is short next to the longest-tenured funds in cybersecurity.
Distributions arrive annual or semiannual, and about 40 stocks inside one theme concentrates the ride.

Full CIBR profile⁠

Full SPAM profile⁠

CIBR vs SPAM Holdings

How CIBR and SPAM differ

Overlap by weight

41.5%

Shared holdings make up 79.2% of SPAM and 50.5% of CIBR.

Level by level

Holdings22 in both41.5%
Countryby domicile89.6%
Sector5 Sectors95.6%
Asset classEquity100%

Sector

Sector weights in CIBR and SPAM, widest gap first
Sector	More in CIBRMore in SPAM	CIBR	SPAM
Technology	CIBR +4.4 points	94.9%	90.5%
Industrials	SPAM +3.1 points	2.9%	6.0%
Communication	SPAM +0.9 points	2.2%	3.0%
Real Estate	SPAM +0.2 points	0.0%	0.2%
Financials	SPAM +0.2 points	0.0%	0.2%

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

Country weights in CIBR and SPAM, widest gap first
Country	More in CIBRMore in SPAM	CIBR	SPAM
United States	CIBR +6.6 points	91.3%	84.7%
Israel	SPAM +3.0 points	2.2%	5.2%
Japan	SPAM +2.5 points	1.0%	3.5%
India	CIBR +1.9 points	1.9%	0.0%
France	CIBR +1.9 points	1.9%	0.0%
Australia	SPAM +1.8 points	0.0%	1.8%
Canada	SPAM +1.4 points	1.7%	3.1%
Denmark	SPAM +1.1 points	0.0%	1.1%
Other countries (3)	SPAM +0.7 points	0.0%	0.7%

Concentration

Weight in the 10 largest Holdings

CIBR55.2%
SPAM53.9%

Securities held

CIBR45
SPAM41

Asset class

CIBR: Equity
SPAM: Equity

Holdings

Only in CIBR23
In both22
Only in SPAM19

Only in CIBR

23 securities, 49.3% of CIBR by weight

Cisco Systems, Inc.7.48%
Broadcom Inc.6.97%
Cloudflare, Inc. (Class A)3.64%
Accenture plc2.69%
International Business Machines Corporation2.18%
NetApp, Inc.2.13%
Gen Digital Inc.2.10%
Dynatrace, Inc.2.09%
Infosys Limited (ADR)2.06%
Microsoft Corporation2.04%
Leidos Holdings, Inc.2.02%
Datadog, Inc. (Class A)1.96%
JFrog Ltd.1.87%
Thales S.A.1.83%
Arista Networks, Inc.1.71%
Alphabet Inc. (Class A)1.63%
Elastic N.V.1.51%
Science Applications International Corporation0.96%
Commvault Systems, Inc.0.96%
Open Text Corporation0.78%
NetScout Systems, Inc.0.39%
Ziff Davis, Inc.0.24%
Atos Group0.10%

Only in SPAM

19 securities, 20.9% of SPAM by weight

CACI International Inc5.55%
Nebius Group NV2.90%
Clear Secure Inc2.53%
CoreWeave Inc2.48%
Alarm.com Holdings Inc1.86%
NEXTDC Ltd1.77%
Netcompany Group A/S1.11%
Arlo Technologies Inc0.90%
SailPoint Inc0.71%
GB Group PLC0.30%
SUNeVision Holdings Ltd0.23%
First American Treasury Obligations Fund 01/01/20400.20%
Bit Digital Inc0.17%
Gorilla Technology Group Inc0.12%
Japanese Yen0.04%
Danish Krone<0.01%
Hong Kong Dollar<0.01%
Israeli New Shekel<0.01%
Euro0.00%

Weight gaps

All 22 Holdings in both funds, largest gap first.

Holding weights in CIBR and SPAM, widest gap first
Holding	More in CIBRMore in SPAM	CIBR	SPAM
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding CorporationBAH	SPAM +4.24 points	1.50%	5.74%
Qualys, Inc.QLYS	SPAM +3.71 points	1.08%	4.79%
SentinelOne, Inc. (Class A)S	SPAM +3.51 points	1.36%	4.87%
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. (Class A)CRWD	CIBR +3.26 points	8.58%	5.32%
Rubrik, Inc. (Class A)RBRK	SPAM +3.01 points	2.97%	5.98%
Palo Alto Networks, Inc.PANW	CIBR +2.94 points	7.58%	4.64%
Fortinet, Inc.FTNT	CIBR +2.77 points	6.30%	3.53%
Trend Micro Incorporated	SPAM +2.59 points	1.04%	3.63%
Tenable Holdings, Inc.TENB	SPAM +2.56 points	0.81%	3.37%
Varonis Systems, Inc.VRNS	SPAM +2.52 points	0.84%	3.36%
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.CHKP	SPAM +2.42 points	2.10%	4.52%
Zscaler, Inc.ZS	SPAM +2.36 points	4.37%	6.73%
BlackBerry Ltd.BB	SPAM +2.08 points	0.88%	2.96%
Netskope, Inc. (Class A)NTSK	SPAM +1.80 points	0.81%	2.61%
Fastly, Inc. (Class A)FSLY	SPAM +1.64 points	0.48%	2.12%
Okta, Inc.OKTA	SPAM +1.27 points	4.49%	5.76%
Akamai Technologies, Inc.AKAM	SPAM +1.20 points	1.78%	2.98%
A10 Networks, Inc.ATEN	SPAM +0.78 points	0.26%	1.04%
Radware Ltd.RDWR	SPAM +0.59 points	0.16%	0.75%
Rapid7, Inc.RPD	SPAM +0.50 points	0.16%	0.66%
F5, Inc.FFIV	SPAM +0.49 points	2.79%	3.28%
OneSpan Inc.OSPN	SPAM +0.39 points	0.15%	0.54%

All 45 CIBR holdings⁠All 36 SPAM holdings⁠

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

CIBR vs SPAM Cost

Overpaying CIBR vs SPAM

$4,327

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

CIBR 0.58%
$11,453
SPAM 0.35%
$7,126

Amount$10,000

Years30 years

Cost over time

CIBR 0.58%
SPAM 0.35%
Overpaying

Year by year

Year	CIBR	SPAM	Overpaying
10	$1,041	$634	$407
20	$3,986	$2,454	$1,532
30	$11,453	$7,126	$4,327

Expense ratio

0.58%CIBR
0.35%SPAM, cheaper

SPAM0.35%CIBR0.58%

0.20%0.60%

Middle half of Cybersecurity funds
Median 0.46%

SPAM 2nd cheapest of 8 funds

CIBR 7th cheapest of 8 funds

CIBR vs SPAM Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026

Yield (12M): CIBR 0.39%, better; SPAM 0.32%
Payout (12M): CIBR $0.39; SPAM $0.15
Last payment: CIBR $0.0029; SPAM $0.15
Ex-dividend: CIBR Sep 24, 2026; SPAM Dec 18, 2025
Paid on: CIBR Sep 30, 2026; SPAM Dec 19, 2025
Frequency: CIBR Quarterly; SPAM Irregular

Distribution history

Per share, 2017 to 2026, same scale for both

CIBRQuarterly · 32 paymentsAll CIBR payments⁠

SPAMIrregular · 2 paymentsAll SPAM payments⁠

CIBR vs SPAM Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years: CIBR 23.8%SPAM 22.7%since Jan 2024
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years: CIBR 1.09SPAM 0.81since Jan 2024
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years: CIBR −33.9%SPAM −24.0%since Dec 2023
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years: CIBR 1.02SPAM 1.08; Market = 1

CIBR and SPAM in the news

All news⁠

ETF Filings
First Trust files an autocallable ETF that can still lose the whole amount
16 hours agoCIBR
ETF Filings
Roundhill files for an active cybersecurity ETF filing, and the fee is still blank
16 hours agoCIBR
Top Movers
Cybersecurity funds led the week, up as much as 12.7%, as gold miners fell
Oct 23, 2026CIBR
Closing Bell
Stocks, Treasurys and gold fall as the 10-year yield climbs to 5.11%
Sep 23, 2026CIBR
Deep Dive
Cybersecurity paid for tech's week. The AI funds did not
Sep 19, 2026CIBR
Week in Funds
Cybersecurity's week was Monday. Chip funds needed four more days
Sep 18, 2026CIBR

Popular comparisons

CIBRBvsIHAKB
First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity ETF · iShares Cybersecurity and Tech ETF
Expense ratio
0.58% · 0.47%
Category
SPAMBvsIHAKB
Themes Cybersecurity ETF · iShares Cybersecurity and Tech ETF
Expense ratio
0.35% · 0.47%
Category
CIBRBvsPSWDB
First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity ETF · Xtrackers Cybersecurity Select Equity ETF
Expense ratio
0.58% · 0.20%
Category
SPAMBvsPSWDB
Themes Cybersecurity ETF · Xtrackers Cybersecurity Select Equity ETF
Expense ratio
0.35% · 0.20%
Category
CIBRBvsXAB
First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity ETF · Corgi AI Cybersecurity ETF
Expense ratio
0.58% · 0.35%
Category
SPAMBvsXAB
Themes Cybersecurity ETF · Corgi AI Cybersecurity ETF
Expense ratio
0.35% · 0.35%
Category

CIBR vs SPAM

In short

Stated mandate

Why people hold it