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 Mid 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 | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | ICICI Prudential Multi Cap | DSP Midcap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nippon India Growth Mid CapMid Cap | itself | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap and ICICI Prudential Multi Cap share 19% of their portfolios | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap and DSP Midcap share 36% of their portfolios |
| ICICI Prudential Multi CapMulti Cap | ICICI Prudential Multi Cap and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap share 19% of their portfolios | itself | ICICI Prudential Multi Cap and DSP Midcap share 25% of their portfolios |
| DSP MidcapMid Cap | DSP Midcap and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap share 36% of their portfolios | DSP Midcap and ICICI Prudential Multi Cap share 25% of their portfolios | itself |
Closest pair: Nippon India Growth Mid Cap Fund and DSP Midcap Fund share 36% of their portfolios. Most of what each of them holds, the other does not; whether two funds this far apart belong in one portfolio is a separate question.
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 | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | ICICI Prudential Multi Cap | DSP Midcap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Mid Cap | Multi Cap | Mid Cap |
| Fund house | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited | DSP Asset Managers Private Limited |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 87% of 109 | 49% of 109 | 43% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 0.86% points | 1.03% points | 1.02% points |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 52% | 108% | 56% |
| Run by P7 | Rupesh Patel · 3.6 yrs | Lalit Kumar · 1.1 yrs | Vinit Sambre · ≥ 1.2 yrs |
| 1-year return | 7.0% | 6.8% | 3.6% |
| 3 years p.a. | 18.6% | 15.9% | 14.6% |
| 5 years p.a. | 18.0% | 15.0% | 11.8% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −19.9% | −17.3% | −21.2% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹48,143 Cr | ₹19,305 Cr | ₹20,871 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 14 yrs | 11 yrs | 13 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 105 · 25% | 167 · 24% | 66 · 30% |
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.