QCLN vs. CIBR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) and CIBR (First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QCLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy, while CIBR is a Cybersecurity fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, QCLN returned 17.14%/yr vs 18.34%/yr for CIBR. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.60% expense ratio.

Performance

QCLN vs. CIBR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) and First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCLN achieves a 52.00% return, which is significantly higher than CIBR's 27.16% return. Over the past 10 years, QCLN has underperformed CIBR with an annualized return of 17.14%, while CIBR has yielded a comparatively higher 18.34% annualized return.

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%

CIBR

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: 27.98%
• YTD: 27.16%
• 6M: 21.95%
• 1Y: 25.06%
• 3Y*: 27.82%
• 5Y*: 16.03%
• 10Y*: 18.34%

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

QCLN vs. CIBR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%	32.34%
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	27.16%	13.06%	18.21%	39.71%	-26.46%	19.67%	50.53%	28.52%	1.47%	18.61%

Correlation

The correlation between QCLN and CIBR is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2015	0.62

Over the past year, the correlation between QCLN and CIBR has dropped to 0.35 - well below their long-term average of 0.62, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

QCLN vs. CIBR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QCLN	CIBR
Industrials	30.2%	3.5%
Technology	20.8%	94.0%
Energy	13.2%	-
Utilities	13.2%	-
Basic Materials	9.4%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	-
Financial Services	1.9%	-
Communication Services	-	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

QCLN vs. CIBR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCLN

QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 89
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 80
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 93

CIBR

CIBR Risk / Return Rank: 27
CIBR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CIBR Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CIBR Omega Ratio Rank: 29
CIBR Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
CIBR Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

QCLN vs. CIBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) and First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR). 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.

	QCLN	CIBR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.42	1.03	+2.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.81	1.53	+2.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.19	+0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.48	1.14	+6.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	25.77	2.71	+23.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QCLN vs. CIBR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCLN Sharpe Ratio is 3.42, which is higher than the CIBR Sharpe Ratio of 1.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCLN and CIBR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QCLN	CIBR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.42	1.03	+2.39
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.05	0.65	-0.59
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.49	0.78	-0.29
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.20	0.66	-0.46

Drawdowns

QCLN vs. CIBR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCLN drawdown since its inception was -76.18%, which is greater than CIBR's maximum drawdown of -33.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCLN and CIBR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCLN	CIBR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-76.18%	-33.89%	-42.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.86%	-21.99%	+6.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-56.08%	-21.99%	-34.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-69.49%	-33.89%	-35.60%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-71.73%	-33.89%	-37.84%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-21.47%	-3.84%	-17.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.44%	-8.66%	-34.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.59%	9.26%	-4.67%

Volatility

QCLN vs. CIBR - Volatility Comparison

First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a higher volatility of 12.57% compared to First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) at 11.15%. This indicates that QCLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CIBR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCLN	CIBR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.57%	11.15%	+1.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.03%	20.93%	+5.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.68%	24.50%	+10.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.96%	24.95%	+13.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.90%	23.59%	+11.31%

QCLN vs. CIBR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QCLN vs. CIBR - Dividend Comparison

QCLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%, less than CIBR's 0.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF	0.45%	0.42%	0.29%	0.42%	0.31%	0.59%	1.10%	0.23%	0.23%	0.10%	0.77%	0.58%
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

Can I hold both QCLN and CIBR in my portfolio?

QCLN and CIBR have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCLN or CIBR?

QCLN has higher volatility (12.57%) compared to CIBR (11.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCLN dropped -76.18% vs CIBR's -33.89%.

Which ETF is better, QCLN or CIBR?

On 10-year performance, CIBR leads with 18.34% vs 17.14% for QCLN. Both ETFs have the same 0.60% expense ratio. On volatility, CIBR has been the lower-risk option at 11.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCLN or CIBR?

Over the 10-year period, CIBR has performed better with a 18.34% return vs 17.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCLN or CIBR?

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

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

CIBR has the higher dividend yield at 0.45%, compared with 0.15% for QCLN.

What is the main difference between QCLN and CIBR?

QCLN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while CIBR is Cybersecurity. QCLN tracks NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy, while CIBR tracks Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.42 vs 1.03), 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.