RNRG.L vs. QCLU.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

RNRG.L (Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and QCLU.L (First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - RNRG.L tracks the Indxx Renewable Energy Producers v2 Index while QCLU.L tracks the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Exclusions Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RNRG.L returned 1.38%/yr vs -3.01%/yr for QCLU.L. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RNRG.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QCLU.L.

Performance

RNRG.L vs. QCLU.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (RNRG.L) and First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (QCLU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RNRG.L achieves a 8.41% return, which is significantly lower than QCLU.L's 15.18% return.

RNRG.L

• 1D: -0.39%
• 1M: -3.01%
• 6M: 3.78%
• YTD: 8.41%
• 1Y: 26.13%
• 3Y*: 1.38%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QCLU.L

• 1D: -2.60%
• 1M: -17.61%
• 6M: 4.25%
• YTD: 15.18%
• 1Y: 46.93%
• 3Y*: -3.01%
• 5Y*: -3.82%
• 10Y*: —

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

RNRG.L vs. QCLU.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
RNRG.L Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	8.41%	34.05%	-23.00%	-14.97%	-10.76%	-0.71%
QCLU.L First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	15.18%	28.81%	-19.33%	-7.57%	-31.41%	-2.06%

Correlation

The correlation between RNRG.L and QCLU.L is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 7, 2021	0.67

The correlation between RNRG.L and QCLU.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RNRG.L vs. QCLU.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

RNRG.L

RNRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 52
RNRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
RNRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
RNRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 49
RNRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
RNRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 50

QCLU.L

QCLU.L Risk / Return Rank: 45
QCLU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
QCLU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
QCLU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 39
QCLU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
QCLU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

RNRG.L vs. QCLU.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (RNRG.L) and First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (QCLU.L). 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.

	RNRG.L	QCLU.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.43	1.18	+0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.06	1.75	+0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.20	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.84	1.87	-0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.25	6.48	-0.23

RNRG.L vs. QCLU.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RNRG.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is comparable to the QCLU.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNRG.L and QCLU.L, 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

RNRG.L vs. QCLU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNRG.L drawdown since its inception was -51.14%, smaller than the maximum QCLU.L drawdown of -71.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNRG.L and QCLU.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNRG.L	QCLU.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.14%	-71.99%	+20.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.11%	-24.92%	+10.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-37.17%	-56.88%	+19.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-70.15%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.88%	-41.20%	+21.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.53%	-29.29%	+2.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.17%	7.23%	-3.06%

Volatility

RNRG.L vs. QCLU.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (RNRG.L) is 4.77%, while First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (QCLU.L) has a volatility of 16.50%. This indicates that RNRG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QCLU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RNRG.L	QCLU.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.77%	16.50%	-11.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.52%	31.62%	-17.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.19%	39.95%	-21.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.44%	38.97%	-17.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.44%	34.17%	-12.73%

RNRG.L vs. QCLU.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

RNRG.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than QCLU.L's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

RNRG.L vs. QCLU.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither RNRG.L nor QCLU.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RNRG.L and QCLU.L in my portfolio?

RNRG.L and QCLU.L have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, RNRG.L or QCLU.L?

On fees, RNRG.L is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, RNRG.L or QCLU.L?

RNRG.L is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QCLU.L.

What is the main difference between RNRG.L and QCLU.L?

RNRG.L tracks Indxx Renewable Energy Producers v2 Index, while QCLU.L tracks Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Exclusions Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for RNRG.L and 0.60% for QCLU.L.