BFOC vs. QCLN
BFOC (FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October) and QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - BFOC is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while QCLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index. BFOC is actively managed, while QCLN is passively managed. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BFOC charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for QCLN.
Performance
BFOC vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BFOC achieves a -7.09% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 22.86% return.
BFOC
- 1D
- -0.44%
- 1M
- -0.41%
- 6M
- -10.22%
- YTD
- -7.09%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QCLN
- 1D
- -0.22%
- 1M
- -13.76%
- 6M
- 11.63%
- YTD
- 22.86%
- 1Y
- 56.36%
- 3Y*
- 0.64%
- 5Y*
- -1.99%
- 10Y*
- 14.62%
BFOC vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BFOC FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October | -7.09% | -9.75% |
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund | 22.86% | 6.37% |
Correlation
The correlation between BFOC and QCLN is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2025 | 0.48 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BFOC vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank
BFOC
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
QCLN
BFOC vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October (BFOC) and First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| BFOC | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.24 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.60 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 8.68 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BFOC vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BFOC drawdown since its inception was -18.41%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFOC and QCLN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BFOC | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.41% | -76.18% | +57.77% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -21.76% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -56.08% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -69.49% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -71.73% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -17.93% | -36.53% | +18.60% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -13.23% | -43.37% | +30.14% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 6.51% | — |
Volatility
BFOC vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BFOC | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 16.44% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 32.09% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.94% | 39.26% | -27.32% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.94% | 38.83% | -26.89% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 11.94% | 35.39% | -23.45% |
BFOC vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison
BFOC has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than QCLN's 0.59% expense ratio.
Dividends
BFOC vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison
BFOC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QCLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BFOC FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund | 0.15% | 0.25% | 0.87% | 0.76% | 0.33% | 0.01% | 0.30% | 0.85% | 1.03% | 0.45% | 1.24% | 0.72% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BFOC and QCLN have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, QCLN is cheaper at 0.59% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
QCLN is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BFOC.
QCLN has the higher dividend yield at 0.15%, compared with 0.00% for BFOC.
BFOC is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QCLN is Alternative Energy Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for BFOC and 0.59% for QCLN.
Find the right allocation for BFOC and QCLN
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer