Compare Mutual Funds

Insights from Fund Comparison

• Both SBI Small Cap Fund (G) and PGIM India Small Cap Fund - Direct (IDCW) are Small Cap Fund, Equity schemes. SBI Small Cap Fund (G) is 17 yrs 2 m old and manages ₹41,059.17 Crs, whereas PGIM India Small Cap Fund - Direct (IDCW) is 5 yrs 3 m old with ₹1,739.29 Crs.
• SBI Small Cap Fund (G) is therefore older and larger, which may indicate more experience and investor confidence.
• SBI Small Cap Fund (G) has its top 3 sectors in Auto Ancillaries (11.03%), Chemicals (7.83%), and Finance (7.34%), while PGIM India Small Cap Fund - Direct (IDCW) focuses on Banks (7.61%), E-Commerce/App based Aggregator (6.72%), and IT - Software (6.70%).
• The funds are completely different in sector allocation, which could result in very different performance patterns based on sector trends.
• SBI Small Cap Fund (G) holds TREPS (13.18%), Ather Energy Ltd. (3.51%), Navin Fluorine International Ltd. (3.28%), City Union Bank Ltd. (2.89%), and Sundram Fasteners Ltd. (2.77%), whereas PGIM India Small Cap Fund - Direct (IDCW) holds Clearing Corporation of India Ltd. (3.45%), Sansera Engineering Ltd. (3.42%), TBO Tek Ltd. (3.12%), Sedemac Mechatronics Ltd. (3.02%), and Krishna Inst of Medical Sciences Ltd. (2.91%).
• 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, SBI Small Cap Fund (G) has 85.42% equity and 0.68% debt, while PGIM India Small Cap Fund - Direct (IDCW) has 96.54% equity and 0.14% debt.
• PGIM India Small Cap Fund - Direct (IDCW) is more aggressive with higher equity allocation, which could lead to higher returns but more volatility.
• SBI Small Cap Fund (G) outperformed PGIM India Small Cap Fund - Direct (IDCW) in 6 Months, 3 Years (returns: 5.84%, 8.69% ) but underperformed in 3 Months, 1 Year, 5 Years (returns: -3.29%, 1.89%, 10.69%). This mixed performance indicates strength in certain market cycles while highlighting periods of relative weakness, suggesting selective timing or careful monitoring may be needed.