Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CIBR vs QQQM: how they differ
Over the year CIBR returned more, +25.6% against +23.0%, and QQQM charges 0.15% against 0.58%.
First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CIBR and QQQM hold 12% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CIBR | QQQM |
|---|---|---|
| Broadcom Inc. | 6.12% | 3.37% |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | 6.76% | 2.09% |
| Microsoft Corporation | 2.07% | 5.32% |
| Alphabet Inc. (Class A) | 1.66% | 3.52% |
| Palo Alto Networks, Inc. | 9.10% | 1.01% |
| CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. (Class A) | 8.66% | 0.81% |
| Fortinet, Inc. | 8.72% | 0.45% |
| Datadog, Inc. (Class A) | 1.70% | 0.36% |
| Zscaler, Inc. | 3.36% | 0.10% |
| Only in CIBR | Only in QQQM |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare, Inc. (Class A) 4.87% | NVIDIA Corp. 8.16% |
| Okta, Inc. 4.20% | Apple Inc. 7.29% |
| F5, Inc. 3.11% | Micron Technology, Inc. 4.80% |
| Rubrik, Inc. (Class A) 2.82% | Amazon.com, Inc. 4.62% |
| Akamai Technologies, Inc. 2.45% | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 3.70% |
| Gen Digital Inc. 2.45% | Tesla, Inc. 3.46% |
| Dynatrace, Inc. 2.29% | Alphabet Inc. 3.26% |
| Arista Networks, Inc. 2.24% | 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 dated May 31, 2026 and Sep 10, 2026.
| CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF | QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Thematic ETF | Core index fund |
| Issuer | First Trust | Invesco |
| What it is | Cybersecurity | Nasdaq-100 |
| Total return, 1 year | +25.6% | +23.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +8.1 pts | +5.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.58% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 62.2% | 96.7% |
| Holdings | 43 | 101 |
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 58% of the fund across 43 positions, as published by its issuer for Sep 10, 2026. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 the fund returned +25.6% with distributions reinvested against +17.5% for the S&P 500, so a holder was ahead by 8.1 pts. It sits 7.6% below its all-time high of Aug 13, 2026.
QQQM in plain words
QQQM is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq-100. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +23.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% 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 4.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CIBR or QQQM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CIBR returned +25.6% and QQQM returned +23.0%, so CIBR returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CIBR or QQQM?
- CIBR charges 0.58% a year and QQQM charges 0.15%, so QQQM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CIBR and QQQM overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 62% of CIBR and 97% of QQQM 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 QQQM the same kind of fund?
- No. CIBR is a thematic ETF and QQQM 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, CIBR against QQQM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CIBR-QQQM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources