TAN vs. QCLN

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) and QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - TAN tracks the MAC Global Solar Energy Index while QCLN tracks the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, TAN returned 12.83%/yr vs 17.54%/yr for QCLN. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TAN charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for QCLN.

Performance

TAN vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TAN achieves a 24.41% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 46.37% return. Over the past 10 years, TAN has underperformed QCLN with an annualized return of 12.83%, while QCLN has yielded a comparatively higher 17.54% annualized return.

TAN

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: -7.34%
• YTD: 24.41%
• 6M: 18.89%
• 1Y: 90.67%
• 3Y*: -3.33%
• 5Y*: -6.08%
• 10Y*: 12.83%

QCLN

• 1D: 1.59%
• 1M: 2.93%
• YTD: 46.37%
• 6M: 38.49%
• 1Y: 106.69%
• 3Y*: 11.22%
• 5Y*: 0.23%
• 10Y*: 17.54%

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

TAN vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	24.41%	48.31%	-37.61%	-26.79%	-5.24%	-25.10%	233.96%	66.53%	-25.67%	54.38%
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund	46.37%	31.81%	-18.86%	-10.02%	-30.37%	-3.21%	184.00%	42.65%	-12.38%	32.34%

Correlation

The correlation between TAN and QCLN is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 15, 2008	0.83

The correlation between TAN and QCLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

TAN vs. QCLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TAN	QCLN
Technology	65.1%	47.6%
Energy	57.3%	0.1%
Utilities	29.2%	8.1%
Financial Services	3.5%	1.4%
Industrials	2.3%	24.8%
Basic Materials	-	7.8%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

TAN vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

TAN

TAN Risk / Return Rank: 74
TAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
TAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
TAN Omega Ratio Rank: 61
TAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
TAN Martin Ratio Rank: 76

QCLN

QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 85
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

TAN vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) 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.

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.

	TAN	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.38	2.91	-0.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	3.29	-0.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.42	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.35	6.54	-2.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.98	21.21	-7.24

TAN vs. QCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TAN Sharpe Ratio is 2.38, which is comparable to the QCLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TAN and QCLN, 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

TAN vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TAN drawdown since its inception was -95.29%, which is greater than QCLN's maximum drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TAN and QCLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	TAN	QCLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.29%	-76.18%	-19.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.94%	-16.40%	-4.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-64.40%	-56.08%	-8.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.95%	-69.49%	-4.46%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.53%	-71.73%	-6.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-71.94%	-24.38%	-47.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-78.47%	-43.40%	-35.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.51%	5.05%	+1.46%

Volatility

TAN vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) have volatilities of 16.46% and 16.78%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TAN	QCLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.46%	16.78%	-0.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.51%	29.37%	-0.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.32%	36.95%	+1.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	40.11%	38.45%	+1.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.17%	35.18%	+2.99%

TAN vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

TAN has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than QCLN's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

TAN vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.50%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.09%	0.30%	0.69%	1.77%	5.04%	1.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TAN and QCLN in my portfolio?

TAN and QCLN have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TAN or QCLN?

QCLN has higher volatility (16.78%) compared to TAN (16.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TAN dropped -95.29% vs QCLN's -76.18%.

Which ETF is better, TAN or QCLN?

On 10-year performance, QCLN leads with 17.54% vs 12.83% for TAN. On fees, QCLN is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, TAN has been the lower-risk option at 16.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TAN or QCLN?

Over the 10-year period, QCLN has performed better with a 17.54% return vs 12.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TAN or QCLN?

QCLN is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

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

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

What is the main difference between TAN and QCLN?

TAN tracks MAC Global Solar Energy Index, while QCLN tracks Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for TAN and 0.59% for QCLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.91 vs 2.38), 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.