Compare Mutual Funds

Insights from Fund Comparison

• Both Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) and Groww Value Fund - Direct (G) are Value Fund, Equity schemes. Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) is 16 yrs 8 m old and manages ₹9,246.02 Crs, whereas Groww Value Fund - Direct (G) is 10 yrs 3 m old with ₹66.95 Crs.
• Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) is therefore older and larger, which may indicate more experience and investor confidence.
• Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) has its top 3 sectors in Banks (26.92%), IT - Software (8.57%), and Finance (6.70%), while Groww Value Fund - Direct (G) focuses on Banks (20.19%), Finance (7.16%), and Auto Ancillaries (5.55%).
• 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.
• Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) holds HDFC Bank Limited (8.80%), Triparty Repo (3.93%), Infosys Limited (3.71%), ICICI Bank Limited (3.46%), and State Bank of India (3.45%), whereas Groww Value Fund - Direct (G) holds CCIL (17.18%), HDFC Bank Limited (7.04%), ICICI Bank Limited (5.61%), Bharti Airtel Limited (5.04%), and State Bank of India (4.60%).
• The funds share exposure to HDFC Bank Limited and ICICI Bank Limited, which makes their performance partly correlated. However, the unique holdings like Triparty Repo in Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) and CCIL in Groww Value Fund - Direct (G) can create divergence depending on how these stocks perform.
• In terms of risk profile, Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) has 96.19% equity and 0.00% debt, while Groww Value Fund - Direct (G) has 78.49% equity and 0.00% debt.
• Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) is more aggressive with higher equity allocation, which could lead to higher returns but more volatility.
• Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) outperformed Groww Value Fund - Direct (G) in 3 Months, 3 Years, 5 Years (returns: 1.50%, 20.09%, 21.93% ) but underperformed in 6 Months, 1 Year (returns: 0.65%, -2.11%). This mixed performance indicates strength in certain market cycles while highlighting periods of relative weakness, suggesting selective timing or careful monitoring may be needed.