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 Dynamic Term | Nippon India Dynamic Term | |
|---|---|---|
| ITI Dynamic Term | itself | 0% |
| Nippon India Dynamic Term | 0% | itself |
Most alike: ITI Dynamic Term Fund and Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund share 0% 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 Dynamic Term | Nippon India Dynamic Term |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Dynamic Term | Dynamic Term |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 33% of 27 | 19% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 1.10% | 0.57% |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | not measured | not measured |
| Run by P7 | Laukik Bagwe · 1.4 yrs | Vivek Sharma · 6.2 yrs |
| 1-year return | 3.1% | 5.2% |
| 3 years p.a. | 6.2% | 7.2% |
| 5 years p.a. | 5.8% | 6.2% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −1.8% | −1.5% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹29 Cr | ₹3,911 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 5.2 yrs | 14 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 5 · 100% | 100 · 40% |
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.