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
| LIC MF Value | UTI Value | |
|---|---|---|
| LIC MF Value | itself | 15% |
| UTI Value | 15% | itself |
Most alike: LIC MF Value Fund and UTI Value Fund share 15% 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 | LIC MF Value | UTI Value |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Value | Value |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 100% of 3 | 37% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 1.31% | 0.79% |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | 192% | 47% |
| Run by P7 | Mahesh Bendre · ≥ 7 mo | Amit Premchandani · 8.6 yrs |
| 1-year return | 20.2% | −4.1% |
| 3 years p.a. | 17.8% | 12.1% |
| 5 years p.a. | — | 11.0% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −25.2% | −17.2% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹282 Cr | ₹9,603 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 3.2 yrs | 12 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 52 · 37% | 71 · 41% |
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.