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 | Bandhan Value | Kotak Mid Cap | Tata Value | UTI Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bandhan ValueValue | itself | Bandhan Value and Kotak Mid Cap: no portfolio disclosed for Kotak Mid Cap | Bandhan Value and Tata Value share 20% of their portfolios | Bandhan Value and UTI Value share 40% of their portfolios |
| Kotak Mid CapMid Cap | Kotak Mid Cap and Bandhan Value: no portfolio disclosed for Kotak Mid Cap | itself | Kotak Mid Cap and Tata Value: no portfolio disclosed for Kotak Mid Cap | Kotak Mid Cap and UTI Value: no portfolio disclosed for Kotak Mid Cap |
| Tata ValueValue | Tata Value and Bandhan Value share 20% of their portfolios | Tata Value and Kotak Mid Cap: no portfolio disclosed for Kotak Mid Cap | itself | Tata Value and UTI Value share 21% of their portfolios |
| UTI ValueValue | UTI Value and Bandhan Value share 40% of their portfolios | UTI Value and Kotak Mid Cap: no portfolio disclosed for Kotak Mid Cap | UTI Value and Tata Value share 21% of their portfolios | itself |
Closest pair: Bandhan Value Fund and UTI Value 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.
Kotak Mid Cap has no portfolio on file, so its row is blank rather than zero — that is an absence in our data, not a finding about the fund.
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 | Bandhan Value | Kotak Mid Cap | Tata Value | UTI Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Value | Mid Cap | Value | Value |
| Fund house | Bandhan AMC Limited | Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited. | Tata Asset Management Limited | UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 67% of 109 | 83% of 109 | 63% of 109 | 37% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 1.17% points | 1.44% points | 1.15% points | 0.79% points |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 68% | not measured | 81% | 47% |
| Run by P7 | Daylynn Pinto · ≥ 3.5 yrs | not known | Sonam Udasi · ≥ 9 mo | Amit Premchandani · 8.6 yrs |
| 1-year return | −1.1% | 4.8% | 0.2% | −4.1% |
| 3 years p.a. | 10.4% | 18.1% | 12.9% | 12.1% |
| 5 years p.a. | 12.8% | 16.8% | 13.3% | 11.0% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −17.9% | −20.9% | −20.9% | −17.2% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹10,051 Cr | ₹64,136 Cr | ₹8,440 Cr | ₹9,603 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 4.9 yrs | — | 11 yrs | 12 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 68 · 47% | none disclosed | 41 · 52% | 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.