ESBG vs. QCLN
ESBG (First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF) and QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - ESBG is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by First Trust, while QCLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index. ESBG is actively managed, while QCLN is passively managed. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ESBG charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for QCLN.
Performance
ESBG vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ESBG achieves a -2.86% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 20.15% return.
ESBG
- 1D
- -2.33%
- 1M
- -2.85%
- 6M
- -8.17%
- YTD
- -2.86%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QCLN
- 1D
- -3.82%
- 1M
- -12.88%
- 6M
- 9.07%
- YTD
- 20.15%
- 1Y
- 54.85%
- 3Y*
- -0.11%
- 5Y*
- -2.97%
- 10Y*
- 14.37%
ESBG vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ESBG First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF | -2.86% | 5.67% |
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund | 20.15% | 4.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between ESBG and QCLN is 0.53, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 19, 2025 | 0.53 |
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
ESBG vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank
ESBG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
QCLN
ESBG vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF (ESBG) 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.
| ESBG | 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 | — | 2.53 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 8.78 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ESBG vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ESBG drawdown since its inception was -18.84%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESBG and QCLN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ESBG | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.84% | -76.18% | +57.34% |
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 | -17.63% | -37.93% | +20.30% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.74% | -43.37% | +35.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 6.27% | — |
Volatility
ESBG vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ESBG | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 17.41% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 32.06% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.71% | 39.27% | -13.56% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.71% | 38.85% | -13.14% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.71% | 35.39% | -9.68% |
ESBG vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison
ESBG has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than QCLN's 0.59% expense ratio.
Dividends
ESBG vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison
ESBG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%, more than QCLN's 0.16% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ESBG First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF | 1.12% | 0.24% | 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 | 0.16% | 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
ESBG and QCLN have a correlation of 0.53, 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 0.95% for ESBG.
ESBG has the higher dividend yield at 1.12%, compared with 0.16% for QCLN.
ESBG is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while QCLN is Alternative Energy Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for ESBG and 0.59% for QCLN.
Find the right allocation for ESBG 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