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
| ITI Mid Cap | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | |
|---|---|---|
| ITI Mid Cap | itself | 37% |
| Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | 37% | itself |
Most alike: ITI Mid Cap Fund and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap Fund share 37% 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 | ITI Mid Cap | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Mid Cap | Mid Cap |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 100% of 31 | 87% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 2.25% | 0.86% |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 116% | 52% |
| Run by P7 | Dhimant Shah · 3.9 yrs | Rupesh Patel · 3.6 yrs |
| 1-year return | 10.4% | 7.0% |
| 3 years p.a. | 20.7% | 18.6% |
| 5 years p.a. | 16.3% | 18.0% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −22.4% | −19.9% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹1,518 Cr | ₹48,143 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 5.5 yrs | 14 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 95 · 20% | 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.