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
| Nippon India Gilt | ICICI Prudential Gilt | |
|---|---|---|
| Nippon India Gilt | itself | 28% |
| ICICI Prudential Gilt | 28% | itself |
Most alike: Nippon India Gilt Fund and ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund share 28% 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 | Nippon India Gilt | ICICI Prudential Gilt |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Gilt | Gilt |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 88% of 109 | 92% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 1.03% | 0.62% |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | not measured | not measured |
| Run by P7 | Pranay Sinha · 5.4 yrs | Manish Banthia · 2.7 yrs |
| 1-year return | 3.9% | 4.5% |
| 3 years p.a. | 6.3% | 7.0% |
| 5 years p.a. | 5.7% | 6.5% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −3.7% | −2.6% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹1,597 Cr | ₹8,380 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 14 yrs | 7.9 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 41 · 71% | 51 · 60% |
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.