FPWR vs. QCLN
FPWR (First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF) and QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - FPWR is a Utilities Equities fund actively managed by First Trust, while QCLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy. FPWR is actively managed, while QCLN is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FPWR returned 12.01%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for QCLN. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FPWR charges 0.96%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QCLN.
Performance
FPWR vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FPWR achieves a 12.96% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 37.69% return.
FPWR
- 1D
- 0.16%
- 1M
- -1.04%
- YTD
- 12.96%
- 6M
- 11.36%
- 1Y
- 21.65%
- 3Y*
- 17.40%
- 5Y*
- 12.01%
- 10Y*
- —
QCLN
- 1D
- -9.41%
- 1M
- 1.77%
- YTD
- 37.69%
- 6M
- 32.56%
- 1Y
- 100.12%
- 3Y*
- 7.73%
- 5Y*
- 0.04%
- 10Y*
- 15.88%
FPWR vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FPWR First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF | 12.96% | 16.78% | 22.60% | -3.36% | 5.28% | 12.26% | 8.98% | 5.66% |
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund | 37.69% | 31.81% | -18.86% | -10.02% | -30.37% | -3.21% | 184.00% | 15.82% |
Correlation
The correlation between FPWR and QCLN is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.42 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2019 | 0.40 |
The correlation between FPWR and QCLN shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (1 year) to 0.42 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
FPWR vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank
FPWR
QCLN
FPWR vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF (FPWR) 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.
| FPWR | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.72 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.14 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.41 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.33 | 6.35 | -2.02 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.59 | 21.67 | -10.08 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FPWR | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.08 | 2.80 | -0.72 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.85 | 0.00 | +0.85 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.45 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.68 | 0.19 | +0.49 |
Drawdowns
FPWR vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FPWR drawdown since its inception was -32.28%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FPWR and QCLN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FPWR | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -32.28% | -76.18% | +43.90% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.02% | -15.86% | +10.84% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.68% | -56.08% | +41.40% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.88% | -69.49% | +49.61% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -71.73% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.96% | -28.87% | +25.91% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.99% | -43.44% | +38.45% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.87% | 4.64% | -2.77% |
Volatility
FPWR vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF (FPWR) is 3.75%, while First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a volatility of 16.35%. This indicates that FPWR 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
| FPWR | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.75% | 16.35% | -12.60% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.12% | 27.94% | -19.82% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.45% | 36.02% | -25.57% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.22% | 38.18% | -23.96% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.40% | 35.03% | -17.63% |
FPWR vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison
FPWR has a 0.96% expense ratio, which is higher than QCLN's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
FPWR vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison
FPWR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.81%, more than QCLN's 0.16% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FPWR First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF | 1.81% | 1.97% | 2.52% | 2.54% | 1.72% | 1.66% | 1.68% | 0.71% | 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
FPWR and QCLN have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
QCLN has higher volatility (16.35%) compared to FPWR (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FPWR dropped -32.28% vs QCLN's -76.18%.
On 5-year performance, FPWR leads with 12.01% vs 0.04% for QCLN. On fees, QCLN is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, FPWR has been the lower-risk option at 3.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, FPWR has performed better with a 12.01% return vs 0.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
QCLN is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.96% for FPWR.
FPWR has the higher dividend yield at 1.81%, compared with 0.16% for QCLN.
FPWR is categorized as Utilities Equities, while QCLN is Alternative Energy Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.96% for FPWR and 0.60% for QCLN.
QCLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 2.08), 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.
Find the right allocation for FPWR 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