Compare Mutual Funds

Insights from Fund Comparison

• Both Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) and UTI-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 UTI-Value Fund - Direct (G) is 13 yrs 6 m old with ₹9,257.87 Crs.
• Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) is older, but UTI-Value Fund - Direct (G) is larger — suggesting that while Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) has more experience, UTI-Value Fund - Direct (G) may be attracting recent investor interest.
• Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) has its top 3 sectors in Banks (26.06%), Finance (7.95%), and IT - Software (7.38%), while UTI-Value Fund - Direct (G) focuses on Banks (30.05%), Automobile (7.27%), and IT - Software (7.05%).
• The funds share exposure to Banks and IT - Software, 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 UTI-Value Fund - Direct (G) holds HDFC BANK LIMITED (8.78%), ICICI BANK LTD (6.26%), BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. (4.32%), AXIS BANK LTD. (3.92%), and KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. (3.74%).
• 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 ICICI BANK LTD in UTI-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 UTI-Value Fund - Direct (G) has 99.01% equity and 0.27% debt.
• Risk profile is similar for both funds.
• Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) outperformed UTI-Value Fund - Direct (G) in 3 Years, 5 Years (returns: 16.71%, 15.49% ) but underperformed in 3 Months, 6 Months, 1 Year (returns: 10.63%, -4.39%, -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.