Compare Mutual Funds

Insights from Fund Comparison

• Both Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) and UTI-Value Fund - Direct (IDCW) are Value Fund, Equity schemes. Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) is 16 yrs 8 m old and manages ₹9,246.02 Crs, whereas UTI-Value Fund - Direct (IDCW) is 12 yrs 11 m old with ₹10,135 Crs.
• Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) is older, but UTI-Value Fund - Direct (IDCW) is larger — suggesting that while Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) has more experience, UTI-Value Fund - Direct (IDCW) may be attracting recent investor interest.
• Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) has its top 3 sectors in Banks (26.92%), IT - Software (8.57%), and Finance (6.70%), while UTI-Value Fund - Direct (IDCW) focuses on Banks (29.72%), IT - Software (10.41%), and Automobile (7.99%).
• 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 (8.80%), Triparty Repo (3.93%), Infosys Limited (3.71%), ICICI Bank Limited (3.46%), and State Bank of India (3.45%), whereas UTI-Value Fund - Direct (IDCW) holds HDFC BANK LIMITED (9.64%), ICICI BANK LTD (5.82%), BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. (4.56%), INFOSYS LTD. (4.46%), and AXIS BANK LTD. (4.04%).
• The funds share exposure to HDFC Bank Limited, which makes their performance partly correlated. However, the unique holdings like Triparty Repo in Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) and ICICI BANK LTD in UTI-Value Fund - Direct (IDCW) 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 UTI-Value Fund - Direct (IDCW) has 98.98% equity and 0.25% debt.
• Risk profile is similar for both funds.
• Nippon India Value Fund (IDCW) outperformed UTI-Value Fund - Direct (IDCW) 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.