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 Flexi 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 | ICICI Prudential Flexi Cap | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | Bandhan Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICICI Prudential Flexi CapFlexi Cap | itself | ICICI Prudential Flexi Cap and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap share 10% of their portfolios | ICICI Prudential Flexi Cap and Bandhan Value share 21% of their portfolios |
| Nippon India Growth Mid CapMid Cap | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap and ICICI Prudential Flexi Cap share 10% of their portfolios | itself | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap and Bandhan Value share 9% of their portfolios |
| Bandhan ValueValue | Bandhan Value and ICICI Prudential Flexi Cap share 21% of their portfolios | Bandhan Value and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap share 9% of their portfolios | itself |
Closest pair: ICICI Prudential Flexi Cap fund and Bandhan Value Fund share 21% 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 | ICICI Prudential Flexi Cap | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | Bandhan Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Flexi Cap | Mid Cap | Value |
| Fund house | ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | Bandhan AMC Limited |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 96% of 27 | 87% of 109 | 67% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 1.28% points | 0.86% points | 1.17% points |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 52% | 52% | 68% |
| Run by P7 | Rajat Chandak · 5.2 yrs | Rupesh Patel · 3.6 yrs | Daylynn Pinto · ≥ 3.5 yrs |
| 1-year return | 3.8% | 7.0% | −1.1% |
| 3 years p.a. | 16.2% | 18.6% | 10.4% |
| 5 years p.a. | 15.0% | 18.0% | 12.8% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −19.7% | −19.9% | −17.9% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹25,256 Cr | ₹48,143 Cr | ₹10,051 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 5.2 yrs | 14 yrs | 4.9 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 80 · 45% | 105 · 25% | 68 · 47% |
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.