COMPARE
Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth vs Zerodha Silver ETF FoF - Direct Growth
Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth and Zerodha Silver ETF FoF are both in the FoF Domestic category, from Angel One Asset Management Company Limited and Zerodha Asset Management Private Limited respectively. Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.01 percentage points.
| Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth | Zerodha Silver ETF FoF - Direct Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | FoF Domestic | FoF Domestic |
| AMC | Angel One Asset Management Company Limited | Zerodha Asset Management Private Limited |
| Benchmark | Domestic Gold Price (GOLDBEES) | Domestic Silver Price (SILVERBEES) |
| NAV | ₹12.8542 (2026-10-28) | ₹17.4683 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹34.465 Cr | ₹209.12 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.2% | 0.21% |
| Inception | 2025-08-20 | 2025-06-23 |
Returns
Risk Metrics
This is a fund of funds. Its risk profile belongs to the schemes it holds, not to a benchmark of its own.
Portfolio Analytics
Punji Fund Health Score
Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth and Zerodha Silver ETF FoF carry the same Punji Quality grade.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth or Zerodha Silver ETF FoF?
Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.01 percentage points lower than Zerodha Silver ETF FoF'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 Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth and Zerodha Silver ETF FoF show risk metrics like Sharpe ratio or alpha?
This is a fund of funds. Its risk profile belongs to the schemes it holds, not to a benchmark of its own. 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, Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth or Zerodha Silver ETF FoF?
Zerodha Silver ETF FoF has ₹209 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹34 Cr for Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth. 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, Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth or Zerodha Silver ETF FoF?
Zerodha Silver ETF FoF launched on 2025-06-23, making it older than Angel One Gold ETF FOF- Direct Growth (launched 2025-08-20). 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.