The 89% Number That Makes Cyber ETFs a Core Hold

Cyber ETFs got their quarterly excuse to rally last week, and it came with a metric that should outlast the earnings beats. When CrowdStrike and Okta reported Aug. 26, both cleared analyst expectations, according to ETF Trends. CrowdStrike posted $1.47 billion in revenue, up 26% from the year-ago quarter, while Okta delivered $805 million, an 11% gain; both companies also beat on earnings per share.

The more consequential number sits in a CrowdStrike report: AI-powered cyber attacks increased 89% in 2025 compared with the prior year, a statistic that gave both CEOs their talking points. CrowdStrike founder and CEO George Kurtz called the latest quarter "a sea change" and described an arms race in which AI is driving more attacks, more cyber spending, and a widening gap between companies that solve problems and those that compound them; Okta's Todd McKinnon approached the same theme from the identity side, arguing that as AI agents transform every layer of technology, each agent needs a trusted identity and controls over what it can access. Together, the two arguments map the ends of the security stack: stopping the attack and authenticating the actor.

The same adoption curve that powers cloud computing and new models also powers AI agents and AI-driven attacks, which makes cyber the mirror image of the AI trade that has dominated the tape. ETF Trends makes the connection explicitly, noting that companies positioned to respond to these AI cyber concerns are also positioned for momentum. That framing gives advisors a useful allocation view: cyber exposure is not a hedge against AI but the cost of doing business with AI, so it belongs in the same conversation as the AI trade, not in the catastrophe bucket.

For advisors who want to own both positions in a single ticker, the Amplify Cybersecurity ETF (HACK) remains the default choice. The fund has traded since 2014 and tracks the Nasdaq ISE Cyber Security Select Index, which ETF Trends describes as providing disciplined exposure to the sector's players. That discipline is the fund's limit as well as its virtue, because HACK will not limit itself to the winners of this earnings cycle; it holds the whole field, including vendors that Kurtz would file under "compound problems." An index can be selective without being clairvoyant.

The earnings beats justify a second look at the sector, but they are quarterly weather; the attack figure is the climate, and it is the number that will keep cyber exposure relevant even when CrowdStrike and Okta inevitably miss a quarter. Advisors should treat HACK as a strategic allocation riding the escalation of AI-driven intrusions, not as a momentum trade chasing the latest print. Fourteen years into its run, the fund has the pedigree to be held that way, and the attack data gives it a foundation that no single earnings report can change. The next CrowdStrike report will show whether the number is still climbing; if it is, HACK has a reason to be in the portfolio.