COMPARE
BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund-Direct Plan-Growth vs HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund - Direct Growth
BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- and HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund are both in the Low Duration Fund category, from Bandhan AMC Limited and HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Ltd. respectively. HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.03 percentage points.
| BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund-Direct Plan-Growth | HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund - Direct Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Low Duration Fund | Low Duration Fund |
| AMC | Bandhan AMC Limited | HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Ltd. |
| Benchmark | NIFTY Low Duration Debt Index A-I | NIFTY Low Duration Debt Index A-I |
| NAV | ₹42.7051 (2026-10-28) | ₹32.7688 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹6,034.267 Cr | ₹824.71 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.37% | 0.4% |
| Inception | 2006-01-12 | 2010-11-19 |
Returns
HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (8.0% vs BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund-'s 7.4%) - 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
HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund carries the higher portfolio YTM.
Punji Fund Health Score
HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- or HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund?
HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund's 3-year rolling CAGR of 8.0% is higher than BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund-'s 7.4%. HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund sits in the 100th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 45th percentile for BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- - 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.
Which has a lower expense ratio, BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- or HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund?
BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund-'s direct-plan expense ratio is 0.03 percentage points lower than HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term 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 BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- and HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund 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 higher AUM, BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- or HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund?
BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- has ₹6,034 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹825 Cr for HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term 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 has a higher yield to maturity (YTM), BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- or HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund?
HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund's portfolio YTM (7.6118%) is higher than BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund-'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 has longer duration (more interest-rate sensitivity), BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- or HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund?
HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund has the longer Macaulay duration of the two, meaning its NAV is more sensitive to interest-rate changes - a longer-duration debt fund tends to gain more when rates fall and lose more when rates rise, compared to a shorter-duration fund. Duration is expressed in years but isn't literally about how long you hold the fund; it's a measure of price sensitivity to rate moves. If you expect rates to fall, the longer-duration fund benefits more; if you expect rates to rise or want to minimize that swing, the shorter-duration fund is the more conservative pick.
Which fund has a longer track record, BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- or HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund?
BANDHAN Ultra Short to Short Term Fund- launched on 2006-01-12, making it older than HSBC Ultra Short to Short Term Fund (launched 2010-11-19). 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.