FCBR.L vs. QCLN.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FCBR.L (First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity UCITS ETF Class A USD Accumulation) and QCLN.L (First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - FCBR.L is a Technology Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD, while QCLN.L is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FCBR.L returned 15.80%/yr vs 2.45%/yr for QCLN.L. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.60% expense ratio.

Performance

FCBR.L vs. QCLN.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity UCITS ETF Class A USD Accumulation (FCBR.L) and First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy UCITS ETF Acc (QCLN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCBR.L achieves a 25.54% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN.L's 50.74% return.

FCBR.L

• 1D: -2.54%
• 1M: 29.92%
• YTD: 25.54%
• 6M: 20.34%
• 1Y: 22.73%
• 3Y*: 22.18%
• 5Y*: 15.80%
• 10Y*: —

QCLN.L

• 1D: -1.62%
• 1M: 15.04%
• YTD: 50.74%
• 6M: 46.10%
• 1Y: 117.65%
• 3Y*: 8.19%
• 5Y*: 2.45%
• 10Y*: —

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

FCBR.L vs. QCLN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FCBR.L First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity UCITS ETF Class A USD Accumulation	25.54%	-0.06%	20.93%	33.00%	-18.86%	20.93%
QCLN.L First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy UCITS ETF Acc	50.74%	20.09%	-17.94%	-12.66%	-23.26%	-17.50%

Correlation

The correlation between FCBR.L and QCLN.L is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.42
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2021	0.53

Over the past year, the correlation between FCBR.L and QCLN.L has dropped to 0.31 - well below their long-term average of 0.53, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FCBR.L vs. QCLN.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCBR.L	QCLN.L
Technology	96.4%	46.8%
Communication Services	2.1%	-
Industrials	1.5%	28.6%
Basic Materials	-	6.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	0.2%
Financial Services	-	2.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	5.2%

Return for Risk

FCBR.L vs. QCLN.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCBR.L

FCBR.L Risk / Return Rank: 24
FCBR.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
FCBR.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
FCBR.L Omega Ratio Rank: 29
FCBR.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
FCBR.L Martin Ratio Rank: 20

QCLN.L

QCLN.L Risk / Return Rank: 90
QCLN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QCLN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
QCLN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 80
QCLN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
QCLN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

FCBR.L vs. QCLN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity UCITS ETF Class A USD Accumulation (FCBR.L) and First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy UCITS ETF Acc (QCLN.L). 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.

	FCBR.L	QCLN.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.91	3.44	-2.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.41	4.03	-2.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.47	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.93	7.96	-7.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.13	25.08	-22.95
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FCBR.L vs. QCLN.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCBR.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.91, which is lower than the QCLN.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCBR.L and QCLN.L, 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

	FCBR.L	QCLN.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91	3.44	-2.52
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69	0.07	+0.62
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.73	-0.10	+0.83

Drawdowns

FCBR.L vs. QCLN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCBR.L drawdown since its inception was -26.10%, smaller than the maximum QCLN.L drawdown of -69.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCBR.L and QCLN.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCBR.L	QCLN.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.10%	-69.87%	+43.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.30%	-14.69%	-9.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.43%	-56.66%	+31.23%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.10%	-68.64%	+42.54%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.10%	-21.08%	+17.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.01%	-40.89%	+31.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.62%	4.67%	+5.95%

Volatility

FCBR.L vs. QCLN.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity UCITS ETF Class A USD Accumulation (FCBR.L) is 11.50%, while First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy UCITS ETF Acc (QCLN.L) has a volatility of 14.86%. This indicates that FCBR.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QCLN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCBR.L	QCLN.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.50%	14.86%	-3.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.74%	24.36%	-2.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.76%	34.07%	-9.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.88%	35.87%	-12.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.82%	36.95%	-14.13%

FCBR.L vs. QCLN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FCBR.L and QCLN.L have an expense ratio of 0.60%.

Dividends

FCBR.L vs. QCLN.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither FCBR.L nor QCLN.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCBR.L and QCLN.L in my portfolio?

FCBR.L and QCLN.L have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FCBR.L or QCLN.L?

Both ETFs have the same 0.60% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCBR.L or QCLN.L?

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

What is the main difference between FCBR.L and QCLN.L?

FCBR.L is categorized as Technology Equities, while QCLN.L is Energy Equities. FCBR.L tracks MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD, while QCLN.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD.