Compare
Up to six funds side by side, and how much of each is the same portfolio as the others. Overlap is Σ min(weight) over the stocks both hold, from the latest disclosures. All 6,937 schemes are searchable — by scheme name, by fund house, or by the category you know them as.
3 of 6 chosen
Add another Small Cap fund — overlap says most about funds of one kind:
Overlap
share of the portfolio the two funds hold in common
| each fundagainst each other | Quant Small Cap | Motilal Oswal Midcap | Nippon India Small Cap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quant Small CapSmall Cap | itself | Quant Small Cap and Motilal Oswal Midcap share 2% of their portfolios | Quant Small Cap and Nippon India Small Cap share 7% of their portfolios |
| Motilal Oswal MidcapMid Cap | Motilal Oswal Midcap and Quant Small Cap share 2% of their portfolios | itself | Motilal Oswal Midcap and Nippon India Small Cap share 5% of their portfolios |
| Nippon India Small CapSmall Cap | Nippon India Small Cap and Quant Small Cap share 7% of their portfolios | Nippon India Small Cap and Motilal Oswal Midcap share 5% of their portfolios | itself |
No two of these hold much of the same portfolio. The closest pair, Quant Small Cap Fund and Nippon India Small Cap Fund, share 7%. That is a number, not a resemblance: at this level the two funds are doing separate things, and nothing here says whether that is what you wanted.
Read a cell as: of everything the two funds hold, this much is the same holding at the same weight. It is symmetric — the pair above the diagonal and the pair below it are one number shown twice. A pair at 0% holds nothing in common, which is a real answer, and often the useful one.
Side by side
record, cost, returns, drawdown, size
| Measure | Quant Small Cap | Motilal Oswal Midcap | Nippon India Small Cap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Small Cap | Mid Cap | Small Cap |
| Fund house | quant Money Managers Limited | Motilal Oswal Asset Management Company Limited | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 69% of 109 | 54% of 109 | 90% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 0.84% points | 1.37% points | 1.10% points |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 75% | 92% | 68% |
| Run by P7 | Ankit Pande · ≥ 2.5 yrs | Rakesh Shetty · 3.8 yrs | Samir Rachh · 9.6 yrs |
| 1-year return | 12.7% | −0.5% | 8.9% |
| 3 years p.a. | 18.5% | 19.5% | 16.1% |
| 5 years p.a. | 19.2% | 21.1% | 19.0% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −24.4% | −28.9% | −24.2% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹34,069 Cr | ₹41,706 Cr | ₹76,236 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 7.5 yrs | 4.0 yrs | 14 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 120 · 43% | 32 · 54% | 257 · 16% |
Funds in different categories are not comparable on returns — a category error is the first thing the postulates refuse to make. Compare each to its own category on its fund page.