QCLN vs. PWER

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) and PWER (Macquarie Energy Transition ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. QCLN is passively managed, while PWER is actively managed. Over the past year, QCLN returned 47.61% vs 49.15% for PWER. Their 0.71 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. QCLN charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for PWER.

Performance

QCLN vs. PWER - 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 Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCLN achieves a 15.06% return, which is significantly lower than PWER's 23.61% return.

QCLN

• 1D: -1.89%
• 1M: -12.61%
• 6M: 3.53%
• YTD: 15.06%
• 1Y: 47.61%
• 3Y*: 1.02%
• 5Y*: -4.81%
• 10Y*: 13.43%
• ALL TIME*: 5.53%

PWER

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 5.97%
• 6M: 9.15%
• YTD: 23.61%
• 1Y: 49.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 23.57%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	$32.43K	$20.22K	$31.27K
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund	$11.75M	$11.34M	$14.04M

QCLN vs. PWER - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund	15.06%	31.81%	-18.86%	16.43%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	23.61%	35.28%	-3.50%	9.35%

Correlation

The correlation between QCLN and PWER is 0.67, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 29, 2023	0.71

The correlation between QCLN and PWER has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

QCLN vs. PWER - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QCLN	PWER
Technology	43.0%	4.7%
Industrials	25.3%	14.8%
Consumer Cyclical	14.2%	-
Basic Materials	8.0%	41.8%
Utilities	7.9%	2.0%
Financial Services	1.5%	-
Energy	0.1%	36.7%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

QCLN vs. PWER — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QCLN

QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 39
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 38
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 42

PWER

PWER Risk / Return Rank: 81
PWER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
PWER Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
PWER Omega Ratio Rank: 82
PWER Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
PWER Martin Ratio Rank: 72

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QCLN vs. PWER - 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 Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER). 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	PWER	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.17	2.29	-1.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.67	2.86	-1.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.39	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.49	3.61	-2.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.28	10.16	-4.87

QCLN vs. PWER - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCLN Sharpe Ratio is 1.17, which is lower than the PWER Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCLN and PWER, 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. PWER - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCLN drawdown since its inception was -76.18%, which is greater than PWER's maximum drawdown of -29.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCLN and PWER.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCLN	PWER	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-76.18%	-29.68%	-46.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.12%	-13.70%	-18.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-50.41%	—	—
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	-40.56%	-6.83%	-33.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.36%	-6.47%	-36.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.04%	4.85%	+4.19%

Volatility

QCLN vs. PWER - Volatility Comparison

First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a higher volatility of 13.69% compared to Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER) at 4.93%. This indicates that QCLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PWER based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCLN	PWER	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.69%	4.93%	+8.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.76%	16.66%	+17.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.78%	21.60%	+19.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.04%	23.53%	+15.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.57%	23.53%	+12.04%

QCLN vs. PWER - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCLN has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than PWER's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCLN vs. PWER - Dividend Comparison

QCLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.16%, less than PWER's 0.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	0.77%	1.37%	1.05%	0.06%	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	0.16%	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

Can I hold both QCLN and PWER in my portfolio?

QCLN and PWER 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.

Which is riskier, QCLN or PWER?

QCLN has higher volatility (13.69%) compared to PWER (4.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCLN dropped -76.18% vs PWER's -29.68%.

Which ETF is better, QCLN or PWER?

On 1-year performance, PWER leads with 49.15% vs 47.61% for QCLN. On fees, QCLN is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, PWER has been the lower-risk option at 4.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCLN or PWER?

Over the 1-year period, PWER has performed better with a 49.15% return vs 47.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCLN or PWER?

QCLN is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for PWER.

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

PWER has the higher dividend yield at 0.77%, compared with 0.16% for QCLN.

What is the main difference between QCLN and PWER?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Macquarie. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for QCLN and 0.80% for PWER.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PWER currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.17), 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.