COMPARE
360 One Quant Fund Direct Growth vs Nippon India MNC Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Option
360 One Quant Fund Direct Growth and Nippon India MNC Fund- are both in the Thematic Fund category, from 360 ONE Asset Management Limited and Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited respectively. 360 One Quant Fund Direct Growth has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
360 One Quant Fund Direct Growth has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.15 percentage points.
| 360 One Quant Fund Direct Growth | Nippon India MNC Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Thematic Fund | Thematic Fund |
| AMC | 360 ONE Asset Management Limited | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | BSE 200 TRI | Nifty MNC TRI |
| NAV | ₹18.6456 (2026-10-28) | ₹9.8713 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹749.58 Cr | ₹381.684 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.16% | 1.31% |
| Inception | 2021-11-08 | 2025-07-02 |
Returns
Risk Metrics
This fund is less than three years old, so a three-year risk history does not exist yet.
| 360 One Quant Fund Direct Growth | Nippon India MNC Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| 3Y Sharpe Ratio | 0.26 | N/A |
| 3Y Alpha | 2.7846% | N/A |
| 3Y Std Deviation | 16.5336% | N/A |
| 3Y Calmar Ratio | 0.51 | N/A |
Portfolio Analytics
Nippon India MNC 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 Quant Fund Direct Growth | Nippon India MNC Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 21.4222 | 34.406 |
| P/B Ratio | - | 9.9087 |
| Dividend Yield | 1.4786% | 1.2678% |
| Active Share | 82.9% | 54.96% |
| Portfolio Turnover | 106% | 210% |
| YTM | - | - |
| Duration (Macaulay) | - | - |
Punji Fund Health Score
Nippon India MNC Fund- has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, 360 One Quant Fund Direct Growth or Nippon India MNC Fund-?
360 One Quant Fund Direct Growth's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.15 percentage points lower than Nippon India MNC 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 Quant Fund Direct Growth and Nippon India MNC 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 Quant Fund Direct Growth or Nippon India MNC Fund-?
360 One Quant Fund Direct Growth has ₹750 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹382 Cr for Nippon India MNC 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 Quant Fund Direct Growth or Nippon India MNC Fund-?
360 One Quant Fund Direct Growth launched on 2021-11-08, making it older than Nippon India MNC Fund- (launched 2025-07-02). 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.