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

Performance

PWB vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF (PWB) 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, PWB achieves a 25.98% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 37.91% return. Over the past 10 years, PWB has outperformed QCLN with an annualized return of 18.33%, while QCLN has yielded a comparatively lower 16.43% annualized return.


PWB

1D
1.29%
1M
2.46%
YTD
25.98%
6M
26.73%
1Y
43.40%
3Y*
32.74%
5Y*
17.69%
10Y*
18.33%

QCLN

1D
1.67%
1M
-2.49%
YTD
37.91%
6M
35.67%
1Y
90.42%
3Y*
6.19%
5Y*
-0.62%
10Y*
16.43%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PWB vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
PWB
Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF
25.98%24.94%31.04%30.61%-25.81%19.58%31.89%24.68%0.88%30.71%
QCLN
First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund
37.91%31.81%-18.86%-10.02%-30.37%-3.21%184.00%42.65%-12.38%32.34%

Correlation

The correlation between PWB and QCLN is 0.67, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.67

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

0.58

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

0.67

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2007

0.69

The correlation between PWB and QCLN shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (3 years) to 0.69 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PWB vs. QCLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
PWB
QCLN

Technology

48.9%
47.6%

Industrials

14.8%
24.8%

Communication Services

10.6%

-

Financial Services

9.2%
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

7.4%

-

Consumer Cyclical

4.8%
10.2%

Healthcare

3.2%

-

Utilities

1.6%
8.1%

Basic Materials

1.2%
7.8%

Energy

-

0.1%

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

PWB
48.9%
QCLN
47.6%

Industrials

PWB
14.8%
QCLN
24.8%

Communication Services

PWB
10.6%
QCLN

-

Financial Services

PWB
9.2%
QCLN
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

PWB
7.4%
QCLN

-

Consumer Cyclical

PWB
4.8%
QCLN
10.2%

Healthcare

PWB
3.2%
QCLN

-

Utilities

PWB
1.6%
QCLN
8.1%

Basic Materials

PWB
1.2%
QCLN
7.8%

Energy

PWB

-

QCLN
0.1%

Real Estate

PWB

-

QCLN

-

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

PWB vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

PWB
PWB Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
PWB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PWB Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
PWB Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
PWB Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
PWB Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank

QCLN
QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
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.

PWB vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF (PWB) 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.


PWBQCLNDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.32

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.12

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.37

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.50

5.51

-2.00

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.63

18.21

-3.58

PWB vs. QCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PWB Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is comparable to the QCLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PWB 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...

Drawdowns

PWB vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PWB drawdown since its inception was -52.58%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWB and QCLN.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PWBQCLNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-52.58%

-76.18%

+23.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.11%

-16.40%

+4.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.10%

-56.08%

+33.98%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.41%

-69.49%

+38.08%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.36%

-71.73%

+39.37%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.10%

-28.75%

+26.65%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.23%

-43.42%

+35.19%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.89%

4.95%

-2.06%

Volatility

PWB vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF (PWB) is 8.70%, while First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a volatility of 16.96%. This indicates that PWB 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


PWBQCLNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.70%

16.96%

-8.26%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.70%

28.95%

-12.25%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.80%

36.71%

-16.91%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.23%

38.33%

-17.10%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.83%

35.10%

-14.27%

PWB vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

PWB has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is lower than QCLN's 0.60% expense ratio.


Dividends

PWB vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison

PWB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QCLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.16%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
PWB
Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF
0.00%0.00%0.08%0.37%0.31%0.04%0.21%0.58%0.97%0.54%0.82%0.67%
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


PWB and QCLN have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QCLN has higher volatility (16.96%) compared to PWB (8.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PWB dropped -52.58% vs QCLN's -76.18%.

On 10-year performance, PWB leads with 18.33% vs 16.43% for QCLN. On fees, PWB is cheaper at 0.56% per year. On volatility, PWB has been the lower-risk option at 8.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, PWB has performed better with a 18.33% return vs 16.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

PWB is cheaper with a 0.56% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QCLN.

QCLN has the higher dividend yield at 0.16%, compared with 0.00% for PWB.

PWB is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while QCLN is Alternative Energy Equities. PWB tracks Dynamic Large Cap Growth Intellidex Index, while QCLN tracks NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for PWB and 0.60% for QCLN.

QCLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.46 vs 2.14), 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 PWB 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