FAAR vs. QCLN

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FAAR (First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF) and QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - FAAR is a Commodities fund actively managed by First Trust, while QCLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy. FAAR is actively managed, while QCLN is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FAAR returned 5.17%/yr vs 17.39%/yr for QCLN. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FAAR charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QCLN.

Performance

FAAR vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) 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, FAAR achieves a 25.71% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 52.94% return. Over the past 10 years, FAAR has underperformed QCLN with an annualized return of 5.17%, while QCLN has yielded a comparatively higher 17.39% annualized return.

FAAR

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -0.61%
• YTD: 25.71%
• 6M: 23.52%
• 1Y: 41.39%
• 3Y*: 11.78%
• 5Y*: 8.35%
• 10Y*: 5.17%

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)

FAAR vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	25.71%	8.07%	5.97%	-5.63%	10.15%	12.34%	8.60%	-1.28%	-9.17%	5.00%
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 FAAR and QCLN is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.01
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.06
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.04
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 24, 2016	0.06

FAAR vs. QCLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FAAR	QCLN
Financial Services	100.0%	1.9%
Basic Materials	-	9.4%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	13.2%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	30.2%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	20.8%
Utilities	-	13.2%

Return for Risk

FAAR vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

FAAR

FAAR Risk / Return Rank: 91
FAAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FAAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
FAAR Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FAAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
FAAR Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

FAAR vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) 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.

	FAAR	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.09	3.49	-0.40
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.29	3.86	+0.43
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.48	+0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.69	7.62	+1.07
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	24.41	26.28	-1.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FAAR vs. QCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FAAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.09, which is comparable to the QCLN Sharpe Ratio of 3.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FAAR 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

	FAAR	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.09	3.49	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64	0.06	+0.59
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45	0.50	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.20	+0.25

Drawdowns

FAAR vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FAAR drawdown since its inception was -18.03%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FAAR and QCLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	FAAR	QCLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.03%	-76.18%	+58.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.85%	-15.86%	+11.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.54%	-56.08%	+44.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.03%	-69.49%	+51.46%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-18.03%	-71.73%	+53.70%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.12%	-20.99%	+19.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.85%	-43.45%	+35.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.73%	4.59%	-2.86%

Volatility

FAAR vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) is 2.45%, while First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a volatility of 12.56%. This indicates that FAAR 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

	FAAR	QCLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.45%	12.56%	-10.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.73%	26.02%	-16.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.48%	34.88%	-21.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.03%	37.97%	-24.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.51%	34.91%	-23.40%

FAAR vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FAAR vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison

FAAR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.15%, more than QCLN's 0.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	9.15%	11.63%	3.45%	3.20%	5.82%	6.49%	3.05%	1.02%	0.58%	2.83%	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 FAAR and QCLN in my portfolio?

FAAR and QCLN have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FAAR or QCLN?

QCLN has higher volatility (12.56%) compared to FAAR (2.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FAAR dropped -18.03% vs QCLN's -76.18%.

Which ETF is better, FAAR or QCLN?

On 10-year performance, QCLN leads with 17.39% vs 5.17% for FAAR. On fees, QCLN is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, FAAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FAAR or QCLN?

Over the 10-year period, QCLN has performed better with a 17.39% return vs 5.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FAAR or QCLN?

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

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

FAAR has the higher dividend yield at 9.15%, compared with 0.15% for QCLN.

What is the main difference between FAAR and QCLN?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.49 vs 3.09), 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.