QCLN vs. IBAT
Compare and contrast key facts about First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) and iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT).
QCLN and IBAT are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. QCLN is a passively managed fund by First Trust that tracks the performance of the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy. It was launched on Feb 8, 2007. IBAT is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. It was launched on Mar 19, 2024. Both QCLN and IBAT are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
QCLN vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
QCLN vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund | 5.17% | 31.81% | 1.20% |
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF | 20.06% | 32.09% | -13.19% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QCLN achieves a 5.17% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 20.06% return.
QCLN
- 1D
- 0.90%
- 1M
- -4.61%
- YTD
- 5.17%
- 6M
- 8.63%
- 1Y
- 61.08%
- 3Y*
- -2.97%
- 5Y*
- -7.09%
- 10Y*
- 12.87%
IBAT
- 1D
- 0.95%
- 1M
- -4.11%
- YTD
- 20.06%
- 6M
- 19.72%
- 1Y
- 63.89%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
QCLN vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison
QCLN has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
QCLN vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank
QCLN
IBAT
QCLN vs. IBAT - 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 iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT). 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 | IBAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.63 | 2.50 | -0.87 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.23 | 3.06 | -0.83 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.41 | -0.14 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.97 | 4.94 | -0.97 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.27 | 13.16 | -0.89 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QCLN | IBAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.63 | 2.50 | -0.87 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.19 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.37 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.15 | 0.75 | -0.61 |
Correlation
The correlation between QCLN and IBAT is 0.78, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
QCLN vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison
QCLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%, less than IBAT's 0.96% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund | 0.21% | 0.25% | 0.87% | 0.76% | 0.33% | 0.01% | 0.30% | 0.85% | 1.03% | 0.45% | 1.24% | 0.72% |
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF | 0.96% | 1.15% | 1.37% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
QCLN vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QCLN drawdown since its inception was -76.18%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCLN and IBAT.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| QCLN | IBAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -76.18% | -28.26% | -47.92% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.18% | -12.90% | -3.28% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -69.49% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -71.73% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -45.67% | -6.61% | -39.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -43.54% | -8.27% | -35.27% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.24% | 4.92% | +0.32% |
Volatility
QCLN vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison
First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a higher volatility of 13.73% compared to iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) at 8.72%. This indicates that QCLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| QCLN | IBAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.73% | 8.72% | +5.01% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 27.33% | 20.07% | +7.26% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 37.76% | 25.73% | +12.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 37.87% | 22.83% | +15.04% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 34.62% | 22.83% | +11.79% |