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
| WhiteOak Capital Mid Cap | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | |
|---|---|---|
| WhiteOak Capital Mid Cap | itself | 27% |
| Nippon India Growth Mid Cap | 27% | itself |
Most alike: WhiteOak Capital Mid Cap Fund and Nippon India Growth Mid Cap Fund share 27% 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 | WhiteOak Capital Mid Cap | Nippon India Growth Mid Cap |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Mid Cap | Mid Cap |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 100% of 13 | 87% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 1.87% | 0.86% |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 110% | 52% |
| Run by P7 | Piyush Baranwal · 4.0 yrs | Rupesh Patel · 3.6 yrs |
| 1-year return | 13.9% | 7.0% |
| 3 years p.a. | 22.4% | 18.6% |
| 5 years p.a. | — | 18.0% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −19.3% | −19.9% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹7,193 Cr | ₹48,143 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 3.0 yrs | 14 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 149 · 27% | 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.