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

Performance

FSCS vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF (FSCS) 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, FSCS achieves a -1.02% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 52.00% return.


FSCS

1D
0.52%
1M
-1.92%
YTD
-1.02%
6M
-0.96%
1Y
-0.14%
3Y*
10.37%
5Y*
5.04%
10Y*

QCLN

1D
-0.62%
1M
13.54%
YTD
52.00%
6M
46.53%
1Y
117.87%
3Y*
12.00%
5Y*
2.04%
10Y*
17.14%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FSCS vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FSCS
First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF
-1.02%1.77%14.98%16.81%-9.11%26.08%5.71%28.00%-12.85%10.74%
QCLN
First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund
52.00%31.81%-18.86%-10.02%-30.37%-3.21%184.00%42.65%-12.38%12.79%

Correlation

The correlation between FSCS and QCLN is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.36

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

0.55

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

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2017

0.59

Over the past year, the correlation between FSCS and QCLN has dropped to 0.36 - well below their long-term average of 0.59, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FSCS vs. QCLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FSCS
QCLN

Financial Services

26.6%
1.9%

Industrials

24.4%
30.2%

Consumer Cyclical

12.8%
9.4%

Consumer Defensive

12.6%

-

Real Estate

5.0%

-

Technology

4.8%
20.8%

Healthcare

4.6%

-

Basic Materials

4.0%
9.4%

Energy

3.1%
13.2%

Communication Services

2.0%

-

Utilities

-

13.2%

Financial Services

FSCS
26.6%
QCLN
1.9%

Industrials

FSCS
24.4%
QCLN
30.2%

Consumer Cyclical

FSCS
12.8%
QCLN
9.4%

Consumer Defensive

FSCS
12.6%
QCLN

-

Real Estate

FSCS
5.0%
QCLN

-

Technology

FSCS
4.8%
QCLN
20.8%

Healthcare

FSCS
4.6%
QCLN

-

Basic Materials

FSCS
4.0%
QCLN
9.4%

Energy

FSCS
3.1%
QCLN
13.2%

Communication Services

FSCS
2.0%
QCLN

-

Utilities

FSCS

-

QCLN
13.2%

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

FSCS vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

FSCS
FSCS Risk / Return Rank: 99
Overall Rank
FSCS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FSCS Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
Sortino Ratio Rank
FSCS Omega Ratio Rank: 88
Omega Ratio Rank
FSCS Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
FSCS Martin Ratio Rank: 99
Martin Ratio Rank

QCLN
QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
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.

FSCS vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF (FSCS) 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.


FSCSQCLNDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.43

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.73

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.01

1.47

-0.46

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.02

7.48

-7.49

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.04

25.77

-25.81

FSCS vs. QCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FSCS Sharpe Ratio is -0.01, which is lower than the QCLN Sharpe Ratio of 3.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FSCS 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FSCSQCLNDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.01

3.42

-3.43

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.28

0.05

+0.23

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.49

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.39

0.20

+0.19

Drawdowns

FSCS vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FSCS drawdown since its inception was -43.57%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FSCS and QCLN.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FSCSQCLNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-43.57%

-76.18%

+32.61%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.81%

-15.86%

+8.05%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.55%

-56.08%

+36.53%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.25%

-69.49%

+48.24%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-71.73%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.84%

-21.47%

+14.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.99%

-43.44%

+37.45%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.62%

4.59%

-0.97%

Volatility

FSCS vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF (FSCS) is 2.96%, while First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a volatility of 12.57%. This indicates that FSCS 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


FSCSQCLNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.96%

12.57%

-9.61%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.24%

26.03%

-17.79%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.69%

34.68%

-21.99%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.09%

37.96%

-19.87%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.20%

34.90%

-13.70%

FSCS vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FSCS and QCLN have an expense ratio of 0.60%.


Dividends

FSCS vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison

FSCS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, more than QCLN's 0.15% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FSCS
First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF
0.91%0.75%1.12%1.47%1.71%1.21%1.33%1.68%1.67%0.67%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


FSCS and QCLN have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QCLN has higher volatility (12.57%) compared to FSCS (2.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FSCS dropped -43.57% vs QCLN's -76.18%.

On 5-year performance, FSCS leads with 5.04% vs 2.04% for QCLN. Both ETFs have the same 0.60% expense ratio. On volatility, FSCS has been the lower-risk option at 2.96%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FSCS has performed better with a 5.04% return vs 2.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

FSCS has the higher dividend yield at 0.91%, compared with 0.15% for QCLN.

FSCS is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while QCLN is Alternative Energy Equities. FSCS tracks SMID Capital Strength Index, while QCLN tracks NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy.

QCLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.42 vs -0.01), 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 FSCS 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