FSGS vs. QCLN

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

FSGS (First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF) and QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - FSGS is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the SMID Growth Strength Index, while QCLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FSGS returned 2.70%/yr vs -1.46%/yr for QCLN. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FSGS charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for QCLN.

Performance

FSGS vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) 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

In the year-to-date period, FSGS achieves a 2.50% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 35.74% return.

FSGS

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: 1.10%
• YTD: 2.50%
• 6M: 0.42%
• 1Y: 5.99%
• 3Y*: 7.80%
• 5Y*: 2.70%
• 10Y*: —

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)

FSGS vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	2.50%	2.41%	6.38%	15.98%	-13.17%	25.56%	10.26%	21.31%	-11.92%	10.39%
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%	14.80%

Correlation

The correlation between FSGS and QCLN is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2017	0.58

The correlation between FSGS and QCLN shifts across timeframes, from 0.47 (1 year) to 0.64 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FSGS vs. QCLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FSGS	QCLN
Financial Services	19.8%	1.4%
Industrials	19.8%	24.8%
Technology	18.8%	47.6%
Healthcare	16.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	10.2%
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	-
Energy	4.0%	0.1%
Communication Services	3.0%	-
Basic Materials	2.0%	7.8%
Real Estate	1.0%	-
Utilities	-	8.1%

Return for Risk

FSGS vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

FSGS

FSGS Risk / Return Rank: 15
FSGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
FSGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
FSGS Omega Ratio Rank: 13
FSGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
FSGS Martin Ratio Rank: 16

QCLN

QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 79
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 65
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

FSGS vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	FSGS	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.40	2.32	-1.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.68	2.77	-2.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.35	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.53	5.30	-4.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.49	16.86	-15.37

FSGS vs. QCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FSGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.40, which is lower than the QCLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FSGS 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.

Drawdowns

FSGS vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FSGS drawdown since its inception was -43.26%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FSGS and QCLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	FSGS	QCLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.26%	-76.18%	+32.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.31%	-16.40%	+5.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.08%	-56.08%	+32.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.08%	-69.49%	+45.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-71.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.58%	-29.88%	+26.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.00%	-43.39%	+35.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.02%	5.14%	-1.12%

Volatility

FSGS vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) is 3.59%, while First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a volatility of 17.65%. This indicates that FSGS 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.

Volatility by Period

	FSGS	QCLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.59%	17.65%	-14.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.87%	29.87%	-19.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.21%	37.47%	-22.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.08%	38.54%	-18.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.75%	35.21%	-12.46%

FSGS vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

FSGS has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than QCLN's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FSGS vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison

FSGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QCLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.17%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	0.00%	0.00%	2.71%	2.29%	1.95%	1.35%	1.32%	1.77%	2.13%	1.15%	0.00%	0.00%
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

Can I hold both FSGS and QCLN in my portfolio?

FSGS and QCLN have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FSGS or QCLN?

QCLN has higher volatility (17.65%) compared to FSGS (3.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FSGS dropped -43.26% vs QCLN's -76.18%.

Which ETF is better, FSGS or QCLN?

On 5-year performance, FSGS leads with 2.70% vs -1.46% for QCLN. On fees, QCLN is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, FSGS has been the lower-risk option at 3.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FSGS or QCLN?

Over the 5-year period, FSGS has performed better with a 2.70% return vs -1.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FSGS or QCLN?

QCLN is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FSGS.

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

QCLN has the higher dividend yield at 0.17%, compared with 0.00% for FSGS.

What is the main difference between FSGS and QCLN?

FSGS is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while QCLN is Alternative Energy Equities. FSGS tracks SMID Growth Strength Index, while QCLN tracks Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FSGS and 0.59% for QCLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 0.40), 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.