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 Small 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 Small Cap | Bandhan Value | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nippon India Small CapSmall Cap | itself | Nippon India Small Cap and Bandhan Value share 11% of their portfolios | Nippon India Small Cap and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap share 16% of their portfolios |
| Bandhan ValueValue | Bandhan Value and Nippon India Small Cap share 11% of their portfolios | itself | Bandhan Value and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap share 9% of their portfolios |
| Nippon India Growth Mid CapMid Cap | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap and Nippon India Small Cap share 16% of their portfolios | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap and Bandhan Value share 9% of their portfolios | itself |
Closest pair: Nippon India Small Cap Fund and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap Fund share 16% 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 Small Cap | Bandhan Value | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Small Cap | Value | Mid Cap |
| Fund house | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | Bandhan AMC Limited | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 90% of 109 | 67% of 109 | 87% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 1.10% points | 1.17% points | 0.86% points |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 68% | 68% | 52% |
| Run by P7 | Samir Rachh · 9.6 yrs | Daylynn Pinto · ≥ 3.5 yrs | Rupesh Patel · 3.6 yrs |
| 1-year return | 8.9% | −1.1% | 7.0% |
| 3 years p.a. | 16.1% | 10.4% | 18.6% |
| 5 years p.a. | 19.0% | 12.8% | 18.0% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −24.2% | −17.9% | −19.9% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹76,236 Cr | ₹10,051 Cr | ₹48,143 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 14 yrs | 4.9 yrs | 14 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 257 · 16% | 68 · 47% | 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.