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
| ICICI Prudential Mid Cap | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | |
|---|---|---|
| ICICI Prudential Mid Cap | itself | 22% |
| Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | 22% | itself |
Most alike: ICICI Prudential Mid Cap Fund and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap 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 | ICICI Prudential Mid Cap | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Mid Cap | Mid Cap |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 41% of 109 | 87% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 1.07% | 0.86% |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 63% | 52% |
| Run by P7 | Lalit Kumar · 4.1 yrs | Rupesh Patel · 3.6 yrs |
| 1-year return | 13.6% | 7.0% |
| 3 years p.a. | 21.8% | 18.6% |
| 5 years p.a. | 17.2% | 18.0% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −21.3% | −19.9% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹8,214 Cr | ₹48,143 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 13 yrs | 14 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 84 · 39% | 105 · 25% |
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.