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.
4 of 6 chosen
Add another Value fund — overlap says most about funds of one kind:
Overlap
share of the portfolio the two funds hold in common
| each fundagainst each other | Tata Value | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | HDFC Large Cap | Nippon India Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tata ValueValue | itself | Tata Value and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap share 11% of their portfolios | Tata Value and HDFC Large Cap share 22% of their portfolios | Tata Value and Nippon India Value share 19% of their portfolios |
| Nippon India Growth Mid CapMid Cap | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap and Tata Value share 11% of their portfolios | itself | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap and HDFC Large Cap share 12% of their portfolios | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap and Nippon India Value share 20% of their portfolios |
| HDFC Large CapLarge Cap | HDFC Large Cap and Tata Value share 22% of their portfolios | HDFC Large Cap and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap share 12% of their portfolios | itself | HDFC Large Cap and Nippon India Value share 35% of their portfolios |
| Nippon India ValueValue | Nippon India Value and Tata Value share 19% of their portfolios | Nippon India Value and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap share 20% of their portfolios | Nippon India Value and HDFC Large Cap share 35% of their portfolios | itself |
Closest pair: HDFC Large Cap Fund and Nippon India Value Fund share 35% 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 | Tata Value | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | HDFC Large Cap | Nippon India Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Value | Mid Cap | Large Cap | Value |
| Fund house | Tata Asset Management Limited | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | HDFC Asset Management Company Limited | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 63% of 109 | 87% of 109 | 51% of 109 | 93% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 1.15% points | 0.86% points | 0.70% points | 0.82% points |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 81% | 52% | 45% | 82% |
| Run by P7 | Sonam Udasi · ≥ 9 mo | Rupesh Patel · 3.6 yrs | not known | Meenakshi Dawar · 8.3 yrs |
| 1-year return | 0.2% | 7.0% | −3.2% | −2.8% |
| 3 years p.a. | 12.9% | 18.6% | 9.1% | 14.0% |
| 5 years p.a. | 13.3% | 18.0% | 10.6% | 13.4% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −20.9% | −19.9% | −16.4% | −17.6% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹8,440 Cr | ₹48,143 Cr | ₹40,166 Cr | ₹8,875 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 11 yrs | 14 yrs | 1.8 yrs | 12 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 41 · 52% | 105 · 25% | 50 · 53% | 94 · 36% |
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.