The investment seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield (before the fund's fees and expenses) of an equity index called the NASDAQ® Clean Edge® Green Energy TM Index... Show more
The First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) is a passively managed exchange-traded fund (ETF) that seeks to track the price and yield of the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index, a market-cap-weighted benchmark of U.S.-listed companies engaged in clean energy. The fund typically invests at least 90% of its net assets in index constituents, spanning solar, wind, electric vehicles, batteries, fuel cells, and related power electronics.
The portfolio holds more than 50 securities and carries an expense ratio of 0.59%. Its largest positions include BE, TSLA, MPWR, ON, FSLR, and RIVN, with the top 10 holdings representing roughly 60% of assets. Sector allocation is concentrated in information technology, industrials, and consumer discretionary, with meaningful materials and utilities exposure.
This concentration helps explain the fund's sensitivity: a handful of large, high-beta holdings in semiconductors, autos, and solar equipment can dominate both gains and losses, making QCLN a high-volatility vehicle even by thematic-ETF standards.
QCLN's trailing 30-day move was decisively negative, with the fund sliding approximately 10% from roughly $48.27 to $43.43. The decline was not uniform; the fund drifted lower through much of the period before accelerating into a sharp late-period selloff.
The quarterly picture is similar in direction but larger in scale. Measured against its level roughly three months earlier, QCLN is down about 12%, reflecting a trend-driven rather than range-bound decline. Importantly, the fund traded near $60 early in the quarter before a steep mid-quarter correction, underscoring the elevated annualized volatility — historically in the mid-to-high 30% range — that characterizes this portfolio.
The most recent leg lower was driven primarily by a sharp repricing of interest-rate-sensitive clean energy assets. With the 10-year Treasury yield trading near 5% and the Federal Reserve holding its target range at 3.75%–4.00%, higher financing costs continued to pressure capital-intensive renewables and electric vehicle names.
The catalyst that crystallized the move came from the solar complex. ENPH fell sharply after issuing forward revenue guidance well below consensus, citing weaker U.S. residential demand, higher interest rates, and the expiration of the Section 25D federal tax credit. The read-through pulled down SEDG and RUN, reinforcing negative sentiment across the sector. Even FSLR, which benefits from a contracted utility-scale backlog, has traded lower year-to-date.
Concentration amplified the damage. BE — a top holding — corrected sharply over the month after an outsized run, while weakness in TSLA on valuation and delivery concerns contributed additional drag. Persistent institutional outflows from clean energy funds reinforced the selling pressure.
The quarterly decline reflects a broader sector rotation rather than a single event. Long-duration, capital-intensive clean energy names underperformed as benchmark yields climbed and investors favored cash-flow-generative, less rate-sensitive segments. Electric vehicle valuations, led by TSLA, faced renewed scrutiny, while residential solar endured ongoing demand softness tied to higher borrowing costs and the lapse of federal incentives.
Within the portfolio, leadership was mixed. Fuel-cell and baseload-power names such as BE posted strong year-to-date gains before reversing in recent weeks, while solar and residential-focused holdings lagged throughout. This dispersion highlights how divergent fundamentals within a single thematic index can mask a uniformly negative headline return.
Tickeron's AI Screener is an AI-powered stock and ETF discovery platform that helps investors scan thousands of securities using technical indicators, fundamentals, volatility metrics, price patterns, industry filters, AI-generated signals, and performance characteristics. Rather than reviewing securities manually, users can apply customizable criteria to surface trending names, breakout candidates, and emerging opportunities across sectors — including clean energy and thematic funds such as QCLN. The screener is designed to make systematic research more efficient, allowing both retail and professional investors to filter the market by the factors that matter most to their process. To explore how the platform can support your analysis, visit the AI Screener.
Several structural themes are likely to shape QCLN over the coming months. First, the path of interest rates remains central: any sustained easing of Treasury yields or Federal Reserve policy could improve financing economics for solar, storage, and EV adoption, while firmer rates would prolong the headwind. Second, policy developments — including the status of clean-energy tax credits and trade measures affecting solar and battery supply chains — will influence both demand and input costs for major holdings.
Third, earnings cycles across the portfolio's largest positions, particularly in semiconductors, autos, and solar equipment, will drive near-term volatility. Residential solar demand trends, utility-scale project backlogs, and electric vehicle delivery momentum are key variables. Finally, capital flows into thematic ETFs and competitive pressure from lower-cost clean energy funds will continue to affect positioning. Investors should monitor these factors rather than extrapolate short-term price moves.
The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer.
The Stochastic Oscillator for QCLN moved into overbought territory on November 11, 2026. Be on the watch for a price drop or consolidation in the future -- when this happens, think about selling the stock or exploring put options.
QCLN moved below its 50-day moving average on October 07, 2026 date and that indicates a change from an upward trend to a downward trend.
Following a 3-day decline, the stock is projected to fall further. Considering past instances where QCLN declined for three days, the price rose further in 50 of 62 cases within the following month. The odds of a continued downward trend are 90%.
The Aroon Indicator for QCLN entered a downward trend on November 11, 2026. This could indicate a strong downward move is ahead for the stock. Traders may want to consider selling the stock or buying put options.
The RSI Indicator points to a transition from a downward trend to an upward trend -- in cases where QCLN's RSI Oscillator exited the oversold zone, 28 of 29 resulted in an increase in price. Tickeron's analysis proposes that the odds of a continued upward trend are 90%.
The Momentum Indicator moved above the 0 level on November 11, 2026. You may want to consider a long position or call options on QCLN as a result. In 73 of 82 past instances where the momentum indicator moved above 0, the stock continued to climb. The odds of a continued upward trend are 89%.
The Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) for QCLN just turned positive on October 29, 2026. Looking at past instances where QCLN's MACD turned positive, the stock continued to rise in 48 of 50 cases over the following month. The odds of a continued upward trend are 90%.
Following a +8.84% 3-day Advance, the price is estimated to grow further. Considering data from situations where QCLN advanced for three days, in 261 of 293 cases, the price rose further within the following month. The odds of a continued upward trend are 89%.
QCLN may jump back above the lower band and head toward the middle band. Traders may consider buying the stock or exploring call options.
The average fundamental analysis ratings, where 1 is best and 100 is worst, are as follows