COMPARE
BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179 DIRECT PLAN-GROWTH (3652 days) vs IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C - Growth - Direct
BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179 and IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C are both in the Income category, from Bandhan AMC Limited and IL&FS Infra Asset Management Limited respectively. BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179 has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
| BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179 DIRECT PLAN-GROWTH (3652 days) | IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C - Growth - Direct | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Income | Income |
| AMC | Bandhan AMC Limited | IL&FS Infra Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | CRISIL Composite Bond Index | CRISIL Medium to Long Duration Debt A-III Index |
| NAV | ₹18.1088 (2026-10-28) | ₹2512755.614 (2026-10-22) |
| AUM | ₹374.879 Cr | - |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.04% | - |
| Inception | 2019-03-11 | 2014-03-03 |
Returns
BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179 leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (6.8% vs IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C's 23.0%) - see the FAQ below for percentile context within each fund's own category.
Risk Metrics
Risk metrics aren't shown for debt funds. Their NAV starts near Rs 10 and compounds steadily, so CAGR, beta and drawdown measure the arithmetic rather than the manager.
Portfolio Analytics
IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C carries the higher portfolio YTM.
Punji Fund Health Score
IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179 or IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C?
BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179's 3-year rolling CAGR of 6.8% is higher than IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C's 23.0%. BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179 sits in the 18th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 91st percentile for IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C - though note both funds may belong to different categories with different medians, so a raw CAGR comparison doesn't account for how each fund performed relative to its own peers. A higher historical return also doesn't necessarily mean lower risk; check the risk metrics below before concluding either fund is the "better" choice.
Why don't BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179 and IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C show risk metrics like Sharpe ratio or alpha?
Risk metrics aren't shown for debt funds. Their NAV starts near Rs 10 and compounds steadily, so CAGR, beta and drawdown measure the arithmetic rather than the manager. 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 a higher yield to maturity (YTM), BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179 or IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C?
IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C's portfolio YTM (9.0777%) is higher than BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179's. YTM is the weighted-average return a debt fund's current bond holdings would earn if held to maturity, assuming no defaults and coupons reinvested at the same rate - a useful forward-looking yield estimate for debt funds the way rolling CAGR is for equity funds, though it's an estimate based on today's portfolio, not a guaranteed return, and can move as bonds are bought/sold or as interest rates change.
Which fund has a longer track record, BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179 or IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C?
IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2C launched on 2014-03-03, making it older than BANDHAN Fixed Term Plan Series 179 (launched 2019-03-11). 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.