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 | Nippon India Value | Nippon India Multi Cap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nippon India Growth Mid CapMid Cap | itself | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap and Nippon India Value share 20% of their portfolios | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap and Nippon India Multi Cap share 31% of their portfolios |
| Nippon India ValueValue | Nippon India Value and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap share 20% of their portfolios | itself | Nippon India Value and Nippon India Multi Cap share 40% of their portfolios |
| Nippon India Multi CapMulti Cap | Nippon India Multi Cap and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap share 31% of their portfolios | Nippon India Multi Cap and Nippon India Value share 40% of their portfolios | itself |
Closest pair: Nippon India Value Fund and Nippon India Multi Cap Fund share 40% 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 | Nippon India Value | Nippon India Multi Cap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Mid Cap | Value | Multi Cap |
| Fund house | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 87% of 109 | 93% of 109 | 50% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 0.86% points | 0.82% points | 0.84% points |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 52% | 82% | 66% |
| Run by P7 | Rupesh Patel · 3.6 yrs | Meenakshi Dawar · 8.3 yrs | Sailesh Raj Bhan · 21 yrs |
| 1-year return | 7.0% | −2.8% | −1.4% |
| 3 years p.a. | 18.6% | 14.0% | 13.5% |
| 5 years p.a. | 18.0% | 13.4% | 16.4% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −19.9% | −17.6% | −18.6% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹48,143 Cr | ₹8,875 Cr | ₹53,760 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 14 yrs | 12 yrs | 14 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 105 · 25% | 94 · 36% | 123 · 29% |
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.