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.
Overlap
share of the portfolio the two funds hold in common
| JM Value | UTI Value | |
|---|---|---|
| JM Value | itself | 22% |
| UTI Value | 22% | itself |
Most alike: JM Value Fund and UTI Value Fund share 22% of their portfolios. Two funds this different are doing different things; whether that is what you want is a separate question.
Side by side
record, cost, returns, drawdown, size
| Measure | JM Value | UTI Value |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Value | Value |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 90% of 109 | 37% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 1.15% | 0.79% |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 116% | 47% |
| Run by P7 | Satish Ramanathan · 5.2 yrs | Amit Premchandani · 8.6 yrs |
| 1-year return | −1.2% | −4.1% |
| 3 years p.a. | 12.9% | 12.1% |
| 5 years p.a. | 14.8% | 11.0% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −26.1% | −17.2% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹821 Cr | ₹9,603 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 14 yrs | 12 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 76 · 32% | 71 · 41% |
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.