QCLN vs. MSTZ

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) and MSTZ (T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QCLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index, while MSTZ is a Inverse Equities fund actively managed by REX. QCLN is passively managed, while MSTZ is actively managed. Over the past year, QCLN returned 61.00% vs 264.10% for MSTZ. At a correlation of -0.41, they often move in opposite directions. QCLN charges 0.59%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for MSTZ.

Performance

QCLN vs. MSTZ - 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 T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCLN achieves a 24.93% return, which is significantly higher than MSTZ's -26.97% return.

QCLN

• 1D: -1.50%
• 1M: -9.42%
• 6M: 14.96%
• YTD: 24.93%
• 1Y: 61.00%
• 3Y*: 1.54%
• 5Y*: -2.98%
• 10Y*: 14.82%

MSTZ

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: 39.32%
• 6M: -19.19%
• YTD: -26.97%
• 1Y: 264.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QCLN vs. MSTZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund	24.93%	31.81%	-3.28%
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	-26.97%	-38.95%	-94.43%

Correlation

The correlation between QCLN and MSTZ is -0.40, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2024	-0.41

Return for Risk

QCLN vs. MSTZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCLN

QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 59
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 48
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 66

MSTZ

MSTZ Risk / Return Rank: 60
MSTZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
MSTZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
MSTZ Omega Ratio Rank: 63
MSTZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
MSTZ Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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. MSTZ - 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 T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). 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.

	QCLN	MSTZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.51	1.64	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.00	2.34	-0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.30	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.99	2.86	+0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.61	5.59	+4.02

QCLN vs. MSTZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCLN Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is comparable to the MSTZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCLN and MSTZ, 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

QCLN vs. MSTZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCLN drawdown since its inception was -76.18%, smaller than the maximum MSTZ drawdown of -99.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCLN and MSTZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCLN	MSTZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-76.18%	-99.38%	+23.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.67%	-84.89%	+65.22%
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	-35.46%	-97.51%	+62.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.37%	-94.53%	+51.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.12%	43.41%	-37.29%

Volatility

QCLN vs. MSTZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) is 17.67%, while T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ) has a volatility of 56.46%. This indicates that QCLN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MSTZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCLN	MSTZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.67%	56.46%	-38.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	31.80%	135.20%	-103.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.06%	148.41%	-109.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	38.81%	171.17%	-132.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.35%	171.17%	-135.82%

QCLN vs. MSTZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCLN has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than MSTZ's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCLN vs. MSTZ - Dividend Comparison

QCLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%, while MSTZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both QCLN and MSTZ in my portfolio?

QCLN and MSTZ have a correlation of -0.40, 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 MSTZ?

MSTZ has higher volatility (56.46%) compared to QCLN (17.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCLN dropped -76.18% vs MSTZ's -99.38%.

Which ETF is better, QCLN or MSTZ?

On 1-year performance, MSTZ leads with 264.10% vs 61.00% for QCLN. On fees, QCLN is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, QCLN has been the lower-risk option at 17.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCLN or MSTZ?

Over the 1-year period, MSTZ has performed better with a 264.10% return vs 61.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCLN or MSTZ?

QCLN is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for MSTZ.

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

QCLN has the higher dividend yield at 0.15%, compared with 0.00% for MSTZ.

What is the main difference between QCLN and MSTZ?

QCLN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while MSTZ is Inverse Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and REX. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for QCLN and 1.05% for MSTZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MSTZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 vs 1.51), 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.