CIBR vs. QCLN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CIBR (First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF) and QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - CIBR is a Technology Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index, while QCLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CIBR returned 18.49%/yr vs 17.39%/yr for QCLN. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.60% expense ratio.

Performance

CIBR vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) and First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIBR achieves a 28.52% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 52.94% return. Over the past 10 years, CIBR has outperformed QCLN with an annualized return of 18.49%, while QCLN has yielded a comparatively lower 17.39% annualized return.

CIBR

• 1D: -2.81%
• 1M: 31.43%
• YTD: 28.52%
• 6M: 24.03%
• 1Y: 25.78%
• 3Y*: 28.32%
• 5Y*: 16.28%
• 10Y*: 18.49%

QCLN

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: 16.40%
• YTD: 52.94%
• 6M: 50.79%
• 1Y: 120.21%
• 3Y*: 12.03%
• 5Y*: 2.16%
• 10Y*: 17.39%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIBR vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	28.52%	13.06%	18.21%	39.71%	-26.46%	19.67%	50.53%	28.52%	1.47%	18.61%
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund	52.94%	31.81%	-18.86%	-10.02%	-30.37%	-3.21%	184.00%	42.65%	-12.38%	32.34%

Correlation

The correlation between CIBR and QCLN is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2015	0.62

Over the past year, the correlation between CIBR and QCLN has dropped to 0.34 - well below their long-term average of 0.62, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CIBR vs. QCLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CIBR	QCLN
Technology	94.0%	20.8%
Industrials	3.5%	30.2%
Communication Services	2.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	9.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	13.2%
Financial Services	-	1.9%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	13.2%

Return for Risk

CIBR vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CIBR

CIBR Risk / Return Rank: 26
CIBR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CIBR Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
CIBR Omega Ratio Rank: 29
CIBR Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
CIBR Martin Ratio Rank: 22

QCLN

QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 89
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 79
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 94

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CIBR vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) 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.

	CIBR	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.06	3.49	-2.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.56	3.86	-2.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.48	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.18	7.62	-6.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.79	26.28	-23.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CIBR vs. QCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIBR Sharpe Ratio is 1.06, which is lower than the QCLN Sharpe Ratio of 3.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIBR and QCLN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CIBR	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.06	3.49	-2.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.66	0.06	+0.60
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.79	0.50	+0.29
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.20	+0.46

Drawdowns

CIBR vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIBR drawdown since its inception was -33.89%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIBR and QCLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	CIBR	QCLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.89%	-76.18%	+42.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.99%	-15.86%	-6.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	-56.08%	+34.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.89%	-69.49%	+35.60%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.89%	-71.73%	+37.84%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.81%	-20.99%	+18.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.66%	-43.45%	+34.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.25%	4.59%	+4.66%

Volatility

CIBR vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) is 10.90%, while First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a volatility of 12.56%. This indicates that CIBR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QCLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CIBR	QCLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.90%	12.56%	-1.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.90%	26.02%	-5.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.50%	34.88%	-10.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.95%	37.97%	-13.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.60%	34.91%	-11.31%

CIBR vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CIBR and QCLN have an expense ratio of 0.60%.

Dividends

CIBR vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison

CIBR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.45%, more than QCLN's 0.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	0.45%	0.42%	0.29%	0.42%	0.31%	0.59%	1.10%	0.23%	0.23%	0.10%	0.77%	0.58%
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

Can I hold both CIBR and QCLN in my portfolio?

CIBR and QCLN have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CIBR or QCLN?

QCLN has higher volatility (12.56%) compared to CIBR (10.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CIBR dropped -33.89% vs QCLN's -76.18%.

Which ETF is better, CIBR or QCLN?

On 10-year performance, CIBR leads with 18.49% vs 17.39% for QCLN. Both ETFs have the same 0.60% expense ratio. On volatility, CIBR has been the lower-risk option at 10.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CIBR or QCLN?

Over the 10-year period, CIBR has performed better with a 18.49% return vs 17.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CIBR or QCLN?

CIBR and QCLN have the same expense ratio: 0.60% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CIBR or QCLN?

CIBR has the higher dividend yield at 0.45%, compared with 0.15% for QCLN.

What is the main difference between CIBR and QCLN?

CIBR is categorized as Technology Equities, while QCLN is Alternative Energy Equities. CIBR tracks Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index, while QCLN tracks NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.49 vs 1.06), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.