Compare Mutual Funds

Insights from Fund Comparison

• Both ICICI Pru Large & Mid Cap Fund - (IDCW) and Navi Large & Midcap Fund - Direct (IDCW-A) are Large & Mid Cap Fund, Equity schemes. ICICI Pru Large & Mid Cap Fund - (IDCW) is 27 yrs 10 m old and manages ₹27,004.55 Crs, whereas Navi Large & Midcap Fund - Direct (IDCW-A) is 8 yrs 0 m old with ₹267.45 Crs.
• ICICI Pru Large & Mid Cap Fund - (IDCW) is therefore older and larger, which may indicate more experience and investor confidence.
• ICICI Pru Large & Mid Cap Fund - (IDCW) has its top 3 sectors in Banks (12.78%), Finance (10.83%), and E-Commerce/App based Aggregator (7.53%), while Navi Large & Midcap Fund - Direct (IDCW-A) focuses on Banks (20.86%), Finance (11.52%), and Healthcare (7.85%).
• The funds share exposure to Banks and Finance, but differ in the rest, which means they will partially move together but may diverge depending on how the unique sectors perform.
• ICICI Pru Large & Mid Cap Fund - (IDCW) holds SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. (4.58%), TREPS (4.56%), Bajaj Finserv Ltd. (3.53%), Page Industries Ltd. (3.48%), and HDFC Bank Ltd. (3.43%), whereas Navi Large & Midcap Fund - Direct (IDCW-A) holds ASTRAL LIMITED (3.74%), TREPS/Reverse Repo/Net Current Assets/Cash/Cash Equivalent (3.41%), HDFC BANK LIMITED (3.36%), THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED (3.33%), and AXIS BANK LIMITED (3.30%).
• The funds have completely different top holdings, which means their performance could diverge significantly depending on which stocks or sectors lead the market.
• In terms of risk profile, ICICI Pru Large & Mid Cap Fund - (IDCW) has 94.27% equity and 1.59% debt, while Navi Large & Midcap Fund - Direct (IDCW-A) has 96.59% equity and 0.00% debt.
• Risk profile is similar for both funds.
• ICICI Pru Large & Mid Cap Fund - (IDCW) outperformed Navi Large & Midcap Fund - Direct (IDCW-A) in 3 Months, 6 Months, 3 Years, 5 Years (returns: -2.92%, -1.72%, 20.43%, 19.94% ) but underperformed in 1 Year (returns: 8.26%). This mixed performance indicates strength in certain market cycles while highlighting periods of relative weakness, suggesting selective timing or careful monitoring may be needed.