What does 'cybersecurity' mean as an investment theme in this comparison?

Cybersecurity refers to firms providing tools and services that protect digital systems from attacks. CIBR focuses specifically on this sub-sector, targeting companies dedicated to security infrastructure and threat detection. Unlike broader technology funds, its mandate is narrow, aiming to capture growth driven by increasing digitalisation and cyber threats. Investors should understand that while this thematic focus offers targeted exposure, it may also involve higher volatility if the sector faces regulatory or technological shifts. This specific theme is distinct from general software development or IT services.

How does an 'expanded tech-software' focus differ from cybersecurity?

IGV tracks the broader software sector, encompassing cloud computing, enterprise applications, and consumer software, in addition to some security firms. This exposure is wider than CIBR's pure cybersecurity focus. 'Expanded tech-software' implies inclusion of companies whose primary revenue comes from software sales and licensing, rather than hardware or services. While CIBR targets a specific niche of digital protection, IGV aims for general software industry growth. Understanding this distinction helps clarify why their holdings and performance metrics may diverge despite both being in the technology category.

Why do expense ratios matter when comparing ETFs?

An expense ratio represents the annual cost of operating a fund, deducted from its assets. A higher ratio reduces net returns over time. In this comparison, CIBR has an expense ratio of 0.58%, while IGV has 0.38%. The difference of 0.20 percentage points might seem small but compounds significantly over long holding periods. Lower fees are generally preferable for identical exposures, but thematic funds like CIBR often charge more due to specialised research and niche construction. Investors should weigh cost against the specific exposure sought.

What is the difference in inception dates and why is it relevant?

CIBR has an inception date of July 2015, providing an operational track record of just over a decade. In contrast, IGV was launched in July 2001, offering over twenty years of history. Longer histories allow investors to analyse performance through multiple market cycles, including the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020 pandemic. The shorter track record of CIBR means less historical data is available to assess its resilience during severe downturns, which may be a consideration for risk-averse beginners seeking established funds.

How do the top holdings overlap between CIBR and IGV?

Both funds share three top-ten holdings: CrowdStrike (CRWD), Palo Alto Networks (PANW), and Fortinet (FTNT). This overlap occurs because major cybersecurity firms are often classified as software companies. However, the weighting and remaining holdings differ significantly. For instance, PANW is the top holding in IGV at 9.02% and second in CIBR at 9.36%. While there is overlap, CIBR excludes large general tech firms like Microsoft, which is a top holding in IGV at 8.35%. This structure highlights CIBR's narrower focus compared to IGV's broader software exposure.

What are the net assets of each fund and what does that imply?

CIBR reports net assets of $16.4 billion, while IGV reports $14.1 billion. These substantial figures suggest both funds have strong liquidity and high investor interest. Larger asset bases can help maintain tight tracking errors between the fund price and its underlying index. However, size does not guarantee performance; it primarily indicates the scale of the fund. For beginners, these large asset numbers reduce concerns about fund closure or significant trading spreads, although both remain subject to market volatility inherent in technology stocks.

How do the dividend yields compare between these two funds?

CIBR has a dividend yield of 0.38%, whereas IGV has a negligible yield of 0.02%. Both yields are low compared to bond or utility ETFs, reflecting the growth-oriented nature of technology stocks. The higher yield in CIBR is modest and may stem from specific holdings like Cisco or Fortinet that pay dividends. IGV's very low yield suggests its holdings prioritise capital appreciation and reinvestment over distributing cash to shareholders. Income-focused investors would find both funds unsuitable for significant cash flow generation.

What does concentration risk look like in these top holdings?

Both funds exhibit concentration in their top positions. In CIBR, the largest holding is CRWD at 9.45%, followed by PANW at 9.36%. In IGV, PANW is the largest at 9.02%, followed by PLTR at 8.71%. While neither is extremely concentrated, having roughly 9-10% of assets in a single company means performance can be heavily influenced by one stock's earnings or news. Beginners should note that diversified funds still carry single-stock risk at the top of the stack, which differs from broad market index funds.

Does IGV hold companies outside the software sector?

Yes, IGV holds Microsoft (MSFT) at 8.35%, a company often classified broadly as technology rather than pure software, though its cloud and OS divisions are software-centric. The fund's 'Expanded Tech-Software' label indicates a broader definition than 'cybersecurity' alone. It includes firms where software is a major, but not necessarily exclusive, part of the business. This inclusion of mega-cap tech firms dilutes the pure software focus some investors might expect, offering more diversification but less thematic purity than CIBR.

Which index do these funds track?

The specific index names tracked by CIBR and IGV are not available in the provided data. Typically, First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity ETF tracks an index composed of companies heavily involved in cybersecurity products and services. iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF generally tracks an index of software industry companies defined by the GICS classification. Without the exact index details, investors rely on the fund's stated category and holdings to infer its tracking methodology. It is important to consult the fund's official prospectus for precise index construction rules.

How should beginners interpret the fee difference over ten years?

CIBR charges 0.58% annually compared to IGV's 0.38%. Over a ten-year period, the 0.20% annual difference could reduce CIBR's net returns significantly compared to IGV, assuming identical gross performance. For example, on a $10,000 investment, the extra 0.20% cost roughly translates to $20 more per year in fees, compounding over time. Beginners should not view this as a reason to choose one fund over the other automatically, but rather understand that thematic funds like CIBR may charge a premium for specialised access that broader funds like IGV do not provide.

CIBR vs IGV

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

Compare CIBR and IGV side-by-side to analyse fees, holdings, dividends and tracking focus. CIBR targets cybersecurity, while IGV focuses on the software sector. We compare expense ratios (0.58% vs 0.38%) and net assets (16.4bn vs 14.1bn) to help you assess each fund. Educational content, not financial advice.

Compare CIBR and IGV side-by-side to analyse fees, holdings, dividends and tracking focus. CIBR targets cybersecurity, while IGV focuses on the software sector. We compare expense ratios (0.58% vs 0.3...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

CIBR

Metric

IGV

0.58%

Expense Ratio

0.38%

Dividend Yield

0.02%

$16.39B

Net Assets

$14.09B

48

Holdings

109

Jul 7, 2015

Inception Date

Jul 10, 2001

–

Index Tracked

–

Technology

Fund Category

Technology

IGV costs about $20.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	CIBR	IGV
CRWDCrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.	9.45%	8.12%
PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc.	9.36%	9.02%
FTNTFortinet, Inc.	8.79%	3.70%

Discover More Comparisons

CIBR vs IHAK

Compare CIBR and IHAK fees, holdings, dividends, and tracking. CIBR expenses are 0.58%, IHAK is 0.47%, with distinct yield and asset base differences.

CIBR vs VOO

Compare CIBR and VOO ETFs. Review expense ratios, net assets, dividend yields, top holdings and tracking differences for factual educational analysis.

CIBR vs WCBR

Compare CIBR and WCBR on expense ratios, holdings, and dividends. CIBR charges 0.58% with 0.38% yield; WCBR costs 0.45% with no dividend yield.

Investment Analysis

CIBR

Pros

First Trust issues a thematic cybersecurity fund with substantial assets totalling sixteen billion pounds sterling.
The portfolio features diversified exposure to major cybersecurity firms like Crowdstrike and Palo Alto.
Despite the niche focus, the fund offers a dividend yield of approximately zero point three eight percent.

Considerations

The expense ratio of zero point five eight percent exceeds the average for comparable broad market ETFs.
Top holdings represent concentrated risk, with the largest position exceeding nine percent of net assets.
The fund's inception date of July 2015 provides a shorter operational track record than older peers.

IGV

Pros

The expense ratio of zero point three eight percent is lower than many thematic technology ETFs.
With an inception date of July 2001, the fund benefits from a long operational history.
Assets exceeding fourteen billion pounds indicate strong liquidity and investor interest in the software sector.

Considerations

The dividend yield of zero point zero two percent is negligible for income-focused investors.
Holdings include broad tech companies like Microsoft, diluting the pure software sector focus.
Concentration in top positions like Palo Alto and Palantir exceeds eight percent each.

Related Market Insights

Cybersecurity's Regulatory Reset: Why the SEC's SolarWinds Retreat Changes Everything

The SEC's SolarWinds retreat removes liability fears, unlocking corporate cybersecurity spending. Discover investment opportunities in leading firms like Palo Alto, CrowdStrike & Fortinet.