COMPARE
360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- Direct Plan - Growth vs UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund-Direct Plan Growth Option
360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- and UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- are both in the Balanced Hybrid Fund category, from 360 ONE Asset Management Limited and UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. respectively. 360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.26 percentage points.
| 360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- Direct Plan - Growth | UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund-Direct Plan Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Balanced Hybrid Fund | Balanced Hybrid Fund |
| AMC | 360 ONE Asset Management Limited | UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. |
| Benchmark | NIFTY 50 Hybrid Composite Debt 50:50 Index | NIFTY 50 Hybrid Composite Debt 50:50 Index |
| NAV | ₹13.3497 (2026-10-28) | ₹9.7701 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹647.01 Cr | ₹159.716 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.62% | 0.88% |
| Inception | 2023-09-04 | 2026-08-14 |
Returns
This fund is less than a year old, so there is not yet enough history to calculate rolling returns.
Risk Metrics
This fund is less than three years old, so a three-year risk history does not exist yet.
Portfolio Analytics
UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- carries the higher portfolio P/E ratio (a rougher proxy for how richly the underlying holdings are valued) - see the table below for the full comparison.
| 360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- Direct Plan - Growth | UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund-Direct Plan Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 27.1927 | 32.0896 |
| P/B Ratio | 6.656 | 9.9087 |
| Dividend Yield | 0.8552% | 0.645% |
| Active Share | - | - |
| Portfolio Turnover | - | - |
| YTM | 7.8697% | - |
| Duration (Macaulay) | 2.47 yrs | - |
Punji Fund Health Score
UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, 360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- or UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund-?
360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund-'s direct-plan expense ratio is 0.26 percentage points lower than UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund-'s. Over long holding periods, a persistent expense-ratio gap compounds into a materially different final corpus even if the two funds' gross returns are similar - it's one of the few fund attributes you can compare with total certainty upfront, unlike future returns, since the fee is contractually fixed rather than a historical estimate.
Why don't 360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- and UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- show risk metrics like Sharpe ratio or alpha?
This fund is less than three years old, so a three-year risk history does not exist yet. This is a deliberate methodology choice, not missing data - risk metrics like alpha and Sharpe ratio are most meaningful for actively-managed funds where a manager makes decisions that can add or subtract value versus a benchmark. For a fund that mechanically tracks an index, the equivalent useful metric is tracking error (how closely it follows its index), not alpha.
Which has higher AUM, 360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- or UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund-?
360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- has ₹647 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹160 Cr for UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund-. A larger AUM generally means deeper liquidity and lower per-unit fixed costs for the AMC to spread across investors, but an AUM that's very large relative to a fund's category and strategy (especially in small/mid cap categories, where the investable universe is smaller) can also make it harder for a manager to enter and exit positions without moving the price - bigger isn't automatically better, especially for less liquid categories.
Which fund has a longer track record, 360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- or UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund-?
360 ONE Balanced Hybrid Fund- launched on 2023-09-04, making it older than UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- (launched 2026-08-14). A longer track record means more real market cycles (bull runs, corrections, rate cycles) the fund has actually navigated, which is useful context for judging consistency - but it isn't a guarantee of future performance, and a newer fund isn't automatically worse, especially if it's run by an experienced manager or team with a track record at a prior fund.
Data as of 2026-10-29. Source: AMFI disclosures via Punji. Not investment advice.