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 17 yrs 3 m old and manages ₹8,821.21 Crs, whereas Groww Value Fund - Direct (G) is 10 yrs 10 m old with ₹67.75 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 (26.06%), Finance (7.95%), and IT - Software (7.38%), while Groww Value Fund - Direct (G) focuses on Banks (26.00%), Pharmaceuticals (7.23%), and Automobile (5.78%).
• The funds share exposure to Banks, 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 (7.30%), State Bank of India (4.39%), NTPC Limited (4.14%), IndusInd Bank Limited (3.73%), and Axis Bank Limited (3.41%), whereas Groww Value Fund - Direct (G) holds TREPS 01-JUN-2026 (7.09%), HDFC Bank Limited (6.53%), ICICI Bank Limited (5.02%), Net Receivable/Payable (4.84%), and Reliance Industries Limited (4.35%).
• The funds share exposure to HDFC Bank Limited, which makes their performance partly correlated. However, the unique holdings like State Bank of India in Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) and TREPS 01-JUN-2026 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 97.69% equity and 0.00% debt, while Groww Value Fund - Direct (G) has 88.07% 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 6 Months, 3 Years, 5 Years (returns: -4.39%, 16.71%, 15.49% ) but underperformed in 3 Months, 1 Year (returns: 10.63%, -1.33%). This mixed performance indicates strength in certain market cycles while highlighting periods of relative weakness, suggesting selective timing or careful monitoring may be needed.