IBAT vs. QCLN

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials while QCLN tracks the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 118.21% vs 92.03% for QCLN. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for QCLN.

Performance

IBAT vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) 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, IBAT achieves a 57.07% return, which is significantly higher than QCLN's 37.20% return.

IBAT

• 1D: -6.13%
• 1M: -0.00%
• YTD: 57.07%
• 6M: 55.05%
• 1Y: 118.21%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QCLN

• 1D: -6.27%
• 1M: -3.52%
• YTD: 37.20%
• 6M: 31.57%
• 1Y: 92.03%
• 3Y*: 8.84%
• 5Y*: -1.13%
• 10Y*: 16.79%

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

IBAT vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	57.07%	32.09%	-13.29%
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund	37.20%	31.81%	2.11%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and QCLN is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.78

The correlation between IBAT and QCLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBAT vs. QCLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBAT	QCLN
Industrials	40.5%	24.8%
Basic Materials	30.6%	7.8%
Technology	25.5%	47.6%
Energy	1.9%	0.1%
Consumer Cyclical	1.5%	10.2%
Utilities	0.4%	8.1%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	1.4%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 94
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 93
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 93

QCLN

QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 78
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 64
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

IBAT vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) 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.

	IBAT	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.11	2.47	+1.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.27	2.90	+1.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.60	1.37	+0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.67	5.64	+3.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.09	18.14	+5.95

IBAT vs. QCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 4.11, which is higher than the QCLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT 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

IBAT vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and QCLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBAT	QCLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.26%	-76.18%	+47.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.71%	-16.40%	+2.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-56.08%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-69.49%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-71.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.13%	-29.12%	+22.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.70%	-43.40%	+35.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.93%	5.09%	-0.16%

Volatility

IBAT vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) is 14.59%, while First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a volatility of 17.77%. This indicates that IBAT 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

	IBAT	QCLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.59%	17.77%	-3.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.56%	29.96%	-6.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.95%	37.45%	-8.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.02%	38.54%	-13.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.02%	35.21%	-10.19%

IBAT vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than QCLN's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.68%, more than QCLN's 0.16% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.68%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both IBAT and QCLN in my portfolio?

IBAT and QCLN have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBAT or QCLN?

QCLN has higher volatility (17.77%) compared to IBAT (14.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs QCLN's -76.18%.

Which ETF is better, IBAT or QCLN?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 118.21% vs 92.03% for QCLN. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, IBAT has been the lower-risk option at 14.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBAT or QCLN?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 118.21% return vs 92.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBAT or QCLN?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for QCLN.

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

IBAT has the higher dividend yield at 0.68%, compared with 0.16% for QCLN.

What is the main difference between IBAT and QCLN?

IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while QCLN tracks Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.59% for QCLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.11 vs 2.47), 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.