PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
QCLN vs. IBAT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

QCLN vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - QCLN tracks the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy while IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QCLN returned 117.87% vs 122.01% for IBAT. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QCLN charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

QCLN vs. IBAT - 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 iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCLN achieves a 52.00% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 63.73% 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%

IBAT

1D
-0.48%
1M
7.21%
YTD
63.73%
6M
54.32%
1Y
122.01%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QCLN vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
QCLN
First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund		52.00%31.81%1.20%
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		63.73%32.09%-13.19%

Correlation

The correlation between QCLN and IBAT is 0.81, 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

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2024

0.78

The correlation between QCLN and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

QCLN vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
QCLN
IBAT

Industrials

30.2%
41.6%

Technology

20.8%
23.4%

Energy

13.2%
3.4%

Utilities

13.2%
0.4%

Basic Materials

9.4%
29.0%

Consumer Cyclical

9.4%
1.9%

Financial Services

1.9%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Industrials

QCLN
30.2%
IBAT
41.6%

Technology

QCLN
20.8%
IBAT
23.4%

Energy

QCLN
13.2%
IBAT
3.4%

Utilities

QCLN
13.2%
IBAT
0.4%

Basic Materials

QCLN
9.4%
IBAT
29.0%

Consumer Cyclical

QCLN
9.4%
IBAT
1.9%

Financial Services

QCLN
1.9%
IBAT

-

Communication Services

QCLN

-

IBAT

-

Consumer Defensive

QCLN

-

IBAT

-

Healthcare

QCLN

-

IBAT

-

Real Estate

QCLN

-

IBAT

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF

Often compared with QCLN:
QCLN vs. ICLNQCLN vs. TANQCLN vs. PBWQCLN vs. GRIDQCLN vs. ACESQCLN vs. CNRGQCLN vs. DRIV
Often compared with IBAT:
IBAT vs. IONIBAT vs. LITIBAT vs. ICLNIBAT vs. GRIDIBAT vs. CRAKIBAT vs. HYDRIBAT vs. IAUM

Return for Risk

QCLN vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
QCLN
QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank
IBAT
IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
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.

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.

QCLNIBATDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.42
4.66

-1.24

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.81
5.05

-1.24

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.67

-0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

7.48

10.01

-2.54

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

25.77

26.37

-0.60

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. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCLN Sharpe Ratio is 3.42, which is comparable to the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 4.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCLN and IBAT, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

QCLNIBATDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.42

4.66

-1.24

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.05

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.49

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.20

1.40

-1.20

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 charts...

Drawdown Indicators

QCLNIBATDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-76.18%

-28.26%

-47.92%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.86%

-12.25%

-3.61%

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

-21.47%

-1.72%

-19.75%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-43.44%

-7.73%

-35.71%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.59%

4.64%

-0.05%

Volatility

QCLN vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a higher volatility of 12.57% compared to iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) at 10.13%. 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 charts...

Volatility by Period

QCLNIBATDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

12.57%

10.13%

+2.44%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

26.03%

20.29%

+5.74%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

34.68%

26.36%

+8.32%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

37.96%

23.81%

+14.15%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

34.90%

23.81%

+11.09%

QCLN vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCLN has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCLN vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

QCLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%, less than IBAT's 0.70% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		0.70%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		0.15%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

QCLN and IBAT have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QCLN has higher volatility (12.57%) compared to IBAT (10.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCLN dropped -76.18% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 122.01% vs 117.87% for QCLN. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, IBAT has been the lower-risk option at 10.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 122.01% return vs 117.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QCLN.

IBAT has the higher dividend yield at 0.70%, compared with 0.15% for QCLN.

QCLN tracks NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QCLN and 0.47% for IBAT.

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.66 vs 3.42), 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 QCLN and IBAT

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