QMAR vs. QCLN
Compare and contrast key facts about FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) and First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN).
QMAR and QCLN are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. QMAR is an actively managed fund by First Trust. It was launched on Mar 19, 2021. 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.
Performance
QMAR vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
QMAR vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 2.45% | 10.89% | 16.11% | 35.47% | -16.56% | 12.31% |
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund | 5.17% | 31.81% | -18.86% | -10.02% | -30.37% | -1.67% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QMAR achieves a 2.45% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 5.17% return.
QMAR
- 1D
- 0.57%
- 1M
- 1.34%
- YTD
- 2.45%
- 6M
- 4.74%
- 1Y
- 19.05%
- 3Y*
- 15.09%
- 5Y*
- 10.57%
- 10Y*
- —
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%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
QMAR vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison
QMAR has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than QCLN's 0.60% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
QMAR vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank
QMAR
QCLN
QMAR vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) and First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN). 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.
| QMAR | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.44 | 1.63 | -0.18 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.29 | 2.23 | +0.05 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.47 | 1.27 | +0.19 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.11 | 3.97 | -1.86 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.64 | 12.27 | +2.37 |
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
| QMAR | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.44 | 1.63 | -0.18 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.76 | -0.19 | +0.94 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.37 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.77 | 0.15 | +0.63 |
Correlation
The correlation between QMAR and QCLN is 0.65, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Dividends
QMAR vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison
QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QCLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 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 | 0.21% | 0.25% | 0.87% | 0.76% | 0.33% | 0.01% | 0.30% | 0.85% | 1.03% | 0.45% | 1.24% | 0.72% |
Drawdowns
QMAR vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QMAR drawdown since its inception was -19.83%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAR and QCLN.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| QMAR | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.83% | -76.18% | +56.35% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.23% | -16.18% | +6.95% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.83% | -69.49% | +49.66% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -71.73% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.32% | -45.67% | +45.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.39% | -43.54% | +40.15% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.33% | 5.24% | -3.91% |
Volatility
QMAR vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) is 3.53%, while First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a volatility of 13.73%. This indicates that QMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QCLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| QMAR | QCLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.53% | 13.73% | -10.20% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.65% | 27.33% | -22.68% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.26% | 37.76% | -24.50% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.04% | 37.87% | -23.83% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.02% | 34.62% | -20.60% |