PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FAD vs. QCLN
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FAD vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FAD achieves a 19.48% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 35.74% return. Over the past 10 years, FAD has underperformed QCLN with an annualized return of 14.97%, while QCLN has yielded a comparatively higher 16.66% annualized return.


FAD

1D
0.25%
1M
5.14%
YTD
19.48%
6M
16.52%
1Y
34.16%
3Y*
24.53%
5Y*
10.64%
10Y*
14.97%

QCLN

1D
-1.06%
1M
-4.54%
YTD
35.74%
6M
29.75%
1Y
86.43%
3Y*
8.46%
5Y*
-1.46%
10Y*
16.66%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FAD vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FAD
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund
19.48%17.23%23.85%19.07%-24.06%21.17%34.92%26.66%-6.45%25.75%
QCLN
First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund
35.74%31.81%-18.86%-10.02%-30.37%-3.21%184.00%42.65%-12.38%32.34%

Correlation

The correlation between FAD and QCLN is 0.77, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.77

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.73

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.76

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.75

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2007

0.72

The correlation between FAD and QCLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

FAD vs. QCLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FAD
QCLN

Technology

27.4%
47.6%

Industrials

25.0%
24.8%

Healthcare

14.8%

-

Consumer Cyclical

10.1%
10.2%

Financial Services

7.8%
1.4%

Real Estate

3.9%

-

Communication Services

3.1%

-

Basic Materials

2.9%
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

2.2%

-

Utilities

1.5%
8.1%

Energy

1.3%
0.1%

Technology

FAD
27.4%
QCLN
47.6%

Industrials

FAD
25.0%
QCLN
24.8%

Healthcare

FAD
14.8%
QCLN

-

Consumer Cyclical

FAD
10.1%
QCLN
10.2%

Financial Services

FAD
7.8%
QCLN
1.4%

Real Estate

FAD
3.9%
QCLN

-

Communication Services

FAD
3.1%
QCLN

-

Basic Materials

FAD
2.9%
QCLN
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

FAD
2.2%
QCLN

-

Utilities

FAD
1.5%
QCLN
8.1%

Energy

FAD
1.3%
QCLN
0.1%

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

FAD vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

FAD
FAD Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
FAD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FAD Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
FAD Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
FAD Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
FAD Martin Ratio Rank: 7474
Martin Ratio Rank

QCLN
QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FAD vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD) 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.


FADQCLNDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.57

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.36

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.35

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.22

5.30

-2.08

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.24

16.86

-4.62

FAD vs. QCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FAD Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is comparable to the QCLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FAD 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

FAD vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FAD drawdown since its inception was -54.33%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FAD and QCLN.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FADQCLNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-54.33%

-76.18%

+21.85%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.66%

-16.40%

+5.74%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.55%

-56.08%

+32.53%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.99%

-69.49%

+37.50%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.25%

-71.73%

+34.48%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.09%

-29.88%

+27.79%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.62%

-43.39%

+33.77%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.80%

5.14%

-2.34%

Volatility

FAD vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD) is 7.82%, while First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a volatility of 17.65%. This indicates that FAD 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FADQCLNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.82%

17.65%

-9.83%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.35%

29.87%

-14.52%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.63%

37.47%

-17.84%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.75%

38.54%

-17.79%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.29%

35.21%

-13.92%

FAD vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

FAD has a 0.63% expense ratio, which is higher than QCLN's 0.59% expense ratio.


Dividends

FAD vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison

FAD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%, less than QCLN's 0.17% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FAD
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund
0.09%0.09%0.59%0.51%0.60%0.09%0.32%0.48%0.20%0.22%0.64%0.41%
QCLN
First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund
0.17%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


FAD and QCLN have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QCLN has higher volatility (17.65%) compared to FAD (7.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FAD dropped -54.33% vs QCLN's -76.18%.

On 10-year performance, QCLN leads with 16.66% vs 14.97% for FAD. On fees, QCLN is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, FAD has been the lower-risk option at 7.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, QCLN has performed better with a 16.66% return vs 14.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QCLN is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.63% for FAD.

QCLN has the higher dividend yield at 0.17%, compared with 0.09% for FAD.

FAD is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while QCLN is Alternative Energy Equities. FAD tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX Multi Cap Growth Index, while QCLN tracks Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index. Their fees differ too: 0.63% for FAD and 0.59% for QCLN.

QCLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 1.75), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FAD 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