Data as of Sep 4, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

CIBR vs QQQ

First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CIBR and QQQ hold 12% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CIBR and QQQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCIBRQQQ
Broadcom Inc.6.04%3.37%
Microsoft Corporation2.09%5.32%
Cisco Systems, Inc.6.84%2.09%
Alphabet Inc. (Class A)1.68%3.52%
Palo Alto Networks, Inc.8.92%1.01%
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. (Class A)8.79%0.81%
Fortinet, Inc.8.54%0.45%
Datadog, Inc. (Class A)1.62%0.36%
Zscaler, Inc.3.47%0.10%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CIBROnly in QQQ
Cloudflare, Inc. (Class A) 4.35%NVIDIA Corp. 8.16%
Okta, Inc. 4.17%Apple Inc. 7.29%
F5, Inc. 3.04%Micron Technology, Inc. 4.80%
Rubrik, Inc. (Class A) 2.95%Amazon.com, Inc. 4.62%
Gen Digital Inc. 2.50%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 3.70%
Akamai Technologies, Inc. 2.40%Tesla, Inc. 3.46%
Dynatrace, Inc. 2.30%Alphabet Inc. 3.26%
Arista Networks, Inc. 2.29%Meta Platforms, Inc. 2.97%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings as filed for May 31, 2026 and Sep 4, 2026.

CIBR and QQQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 4, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CIBR
First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF
QQQ
Invesco QQQ Trust
Where it sitsThemes deskCore fund
IssuerFirst TrustInvesco
What it isCybersecurityNasdaq-100, book from QQQM
Total return, 1 year+31.4%+25.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+20.0%+20.0%
Gap to the S&P 500+11.5 pts+5.6 pts
Expense ratio0.58%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50061.9%96.7%
Holdings43101

CIBR in plain words

By weight, 62% of CIBR's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 91%. The top ten holdings are 57% of the fund across 43 positions, as filed for Sep 3, 2026. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 the fund returned +31.4% with distributions reinvested against +20.0% for the S&P 500, so a holder was ahead by 11.5 pts. It sits 7.5% below its all-time high of Aug 13, 2026.

QQQ in plain words

QQQ is a index equity fund tracking Nasdaq-100, book from QQQM. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 it returned +25.6% with distributions reinvested, against +20.0% for the S&P 500 and +25.6% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 101 positions, with the top ten at 47.5%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 4, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CIBR or QQQ?
In the year to Sep 4, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CIBR returned +31.4% and QQQ returned +25.6%, so CIBR returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CIBR or QQQ?
CIBR charges 0.58% a year and QQQ charges 0.18%, so QQQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CIBR and QQQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 62% of CIBR and 97% of QQQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 12% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
Are CIBR and QQQ the same kind of fund?
No. CIBR is a thematic ETF and QQQ is an index ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

CIBR against QQQ, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 4, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, CIBR against QQQ, data as of Sep 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CIBR-QQQ.html Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources