EIPX vs. QCLN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EIPX (FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF) and QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - EIPX is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by First Trust, while QCLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy. EIPX is actively managed, while QCLN is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EIPX returned 21.12%/yr vs 12.03%/yr for QCLN. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EIPX charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QCLN.

Performance

EIPX vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX) 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, EIPX achieves a 21.96% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 52.94% return.

EIPX

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: -2.12%
• YTD: 21.96%
• 6M: 19.46%
• 1Y: 30.04%
• 3Y*: 21.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

EIPX vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	21.96%	11.44%	19.11%	10.74%	0.56%
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund	52.94%	31.81%	-18.86%	-10.02%	-13.56%

Correlation

The correlation between EIPX and QCLN is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2022	0.40

Over the past year, the correlation between EIPX and QCLN has dropped to 0.20 - well below their long-term average of 0.40, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

EIPX vs. QCLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EIPX	QCLN
Energy	69.5%	13.2%
Utilities	26.1%	13.2%
Industrials	4.2%	30.2%
Technology	0.2%	20.8%
Basic Materials	-	9.4%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	1.9%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

EIPX vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

EIPX

EIPX Risk / Return Rank: 86
EIPX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
EIPX Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
EIPX Omega Ratio Rank: 77
EIPX Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EIPX Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

EIPX vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX) 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.

	EIPX	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.71	3.49	-0.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.82	3.86	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.48	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.32	7.62	-0.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.31	26.28	-5.97
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EIPX vs. QCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EIPX Sharpe Ratio is 2.71, which is comparable to the QCLN Sharpe Ratio of 3.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EIPX 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

	EIPX	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.71	3.49	-0.78
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.06	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.50	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.20	0.20	+1.00

Drawdowns

EIPX vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EIPX drawdown since its inception was -15.43%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EIPX and QCLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	EIPX	QCLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.43%	-76.18%	+60.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.12%	-15.86%	+11.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.43%	-56.08%	+40.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-69.49%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-71.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.58%	-20.99%	+18.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.27%	-43.45%	+41.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.49%	4.59%	-3.10%

Volatility

EIPX vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX) is 4.01%, while First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a volatility of 12.56%. This indicates that EIPX 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

	EIPX	QCLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.01%	12.56%	-8.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.50%	26.02%	-17.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.17%	34.88%	-23.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.06%	37.97%	-22.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.06%	34.91%	-19.85%

EIPX vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

EIPX has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than QCLN's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

EIPX vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison

EIPX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.68%, more than QCLN's 0.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	2.68%	3.23%	3.27%	3.48%	0.34%	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

Can I hold both EIPX and QCLN in my portfolio?

EIPX and QCLN have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EIPX or QCLN?

QCLN has higher volatility (12.56%) compared to EIPX (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EIPX dropped -15.43% vs QCLN's -76.18%.

Which ETF is better, EIPX or QCLN?

On 3-year performance, EIPX leads with 21.12% vs 12.03% for QCLN. On fees, QCLN is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, EIPX has been the lower-risk option at 4.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EIPX or QCLN?

Over the 3-year period, EIPX has performed better with a 21.12% return vs 12.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EIPX or QCLN?

QCLN is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for EIPX.

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

EIPX has the higher dividend yield at 2.68%, compared with 0.15% for QCLN.

What is the main difference between EIPX and QCLN?

EIPX is categorized as Energy Equities, while QCLN is Alternative Energy Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for EIPX and 0.60% for QCLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.49 vs 2.71), 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.