FPA vs. QCLN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FPA (First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund) and QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - FPA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ AlphaDEX Asia Pacific Ex-Japan Index, while QCLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FPA returned 11.25%/yr vs 17.39%/yr for QCLN. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FPA charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QCLN.

Performance

FPA vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) 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

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FPA having a 51.47% return and QCLN slightly higher at 52.94%. Over the past 10 years, FPA has underperformed QCLN with an annualized return of 11.25%, while QCLN has yielded a comparatively higher 17.39% annualized return.

FPA

• 1D: -0.59%
• 1M: 9.98%
• YTD: 51.47%
• 6M: 51.19%
• 1Y: 82.43%
• 3Y*: 33.32%
• 5Y*: 13.09%
• 10Y*: 11.25%

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)

FPA vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FPA First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund	51.47%	43.16%	3.95%	9.97%	-14.55%	2.98%	13.43%	8.91%	-21.91%	35.81%
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 FPA and QCLN is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.47
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 21, 2011	0.46

FPA vs. QCLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FPA	QCLN
Industrials	37.1%	30.2%
Technology	16.1%	20.8%
Financial Services	9.6%	1.9%
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	9.4%
Real Estate	6.9%	-
Energy	6.7%	13.2%
Utilities	5.7%	13.2%
Basic Materials	4.9%	9.4%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	-
Communication Services	2.6%	-
Healthcare	1.0%	-

Return for Risk

FPA vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

FPA

FPA Risk / Return Rank: 88
FPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
FPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
FPA Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FPA 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.

FPA vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) 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.

	FPA	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.24	3.49	-0.24
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.94	3.86	+0.08
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	1.48	+0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.39	7.62	-2.23
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	19.96	26.28	-6.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FPA vs. QCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FPA Sharpe Ratio is 3.24, which is comparable to the QCLN Sharpe Ratio of 3.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FPA 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

	FPA	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.24	3.49	-0.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55	0.06	+0.49
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.50	0.50	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	0.20	+0.13

Drawdowns

FPA vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FPA drawdown since its inception was -52.91%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FPA and QCLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	FPA	QCLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.91%	-76.18%	+23.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.37%	-15.86%	+0.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.66%	-56.08%	+35.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.21%	-69.49%	+34.28%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.91%	-71.73%	+18.82%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.12%	-20.99%	+16.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.49%	-43.45%	+29.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.14%	4.59%	-0.45%

Volatility

FPA vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) and First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) have volatilities of 12.96% and 12.56%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FPA	QCLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.96%	12.56%	+0.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.92%	26.02%	-4.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.55%	34.88%	-9.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.98%	37.97%	-13.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.39%	34.91%	-12.52%

FPA vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

FPA has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than QCLN's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

FPA vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison

FPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.52%, more than QCLN's 0.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FPA First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund	3.52%	4.71%	3.40%	3.02%	4.22%	5.12%	1.59%	3.90%	2.81%	3.15%	2.42%	1.74%
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 FPA and QCLN in my portfolio?

FPA and QCLN have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FPA or QCLN?

FPA has higher volatility (12.96%) compared to QCLN (12.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FPA dropped -52.91% vs QCLN's -76.18%.

Which ETF is better, FPA or QCLN?

On 10-year performance, QCLN leads with 17.39% vs 11.25% for FPA. On fees, QCLN is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QCLN has been the lower-risk option at 12.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FPA or QCLN?

Over the 10-year period, QCLN has performed better with a 17.39% return vs 11.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FPA or QCLN?

QCLN is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FPA.

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

FPA has the higher dividend yield at 3.52%, compared with 0.15% for QCLN.

What is the main difference between FPA and QCLN?

FPA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while QCLN is Alternative Energy Equities. FPA tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX Asia Pacific Ex-Japan Index, while QCLN tracks NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FPA and 0.60% for QCLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.49 vs 3.24), 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.