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 Other ETFs fund — overlap says most about funds of one kind:
Overlap
share of the portfolio the two funds hold in common
| each fundagainst each other | SBI BSE SENSEX ETF | ICICI Prudential BSE Sensex ETF | ICICI Prudential Nifty 50 ETF |
|---|---|---|---|
| SBI BSE SENSEX ETFOther ETFs | itself | SBI BSE SENSEX ETF and ICICI Prudential BSE Sensex ETF share 100% of their portfolios | SBI BSE SENSEX ETF and ICICI Prudential Nifty 50 ETF share 83% of their portfolios |
| ICICI Prudential BSE Sensex ETFOther ETFs | ICICI Prudential BSE Sensex ETF and SBI BSE SENSEX ETF share 100% of their portfolios | itself | ICICI Prudential BSE Sensex ETF and ICICI Prudential Nifty 50 ETF share 83% of their portfolios |
| ICICI Prudential Nifty 50 ETFOther ETFs | ICICI Prudential Nifty 50 ETF and SBI BSE SENSEX ETF share 83% of their portfolios | ICICI Prudential Nifty 50 ETF and ICICI Prudential BSE Sensex ETF share 83% of their portfolios | itself |
Closest pair: SBI BSE SENSEX ETF and ICICI Prudential BSE Sensex ETF share 100% of their portfolios. Holding both is closer to holding one twice than to diversifying.
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 | SBI BSE SENSEX ETF | ICICI Prudential BSE Sensex ETF | ICICI Prudential Nifty 50 ETF |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Other ETFs | Other ETFs | Other ETFs |
| Fund house | SBI Funds Management Limited | ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited | ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 21% of 109 | 45% of 109 | 28% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 31% | 31% | 32% |
| Run by P7 | Viral Chhadva · 7 mo | Nishit Patel · 5.7 yrs | Nishit Patel · 5.7 yrs |
| 1-year return | −8.0% | −8.0% | −6.1% |
| 3 years p.a. | 5.3% | 5.3% | 7.1% |
| 5 years p.a. | 6.1% | 6.1% | 7.1% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −16.1% | −16.1% | −15.4% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹1.22 lakh Cr | ₹32,675 Cr | ₹44,570 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 5.8 yrs | 10 yrs | 12 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 32 · 64% | 32 · 64% | 52 · 53% |
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.