COMPARE
Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth vs HSBC Arbitrage Fund - Direct Growth
Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth and HSBC Arbitrage Fund are both in the Arbitrage Fund category, from Capitalmind Asset Management Private Limited and HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Ltd. respectively. Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.32 percentage points.
| Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth | HSBC Arbitrage Fund - Direct Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Arbitrage Fund | Arbitrage Fund |
| AMC | Capitalmind Asset Management Private Limited | HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Ltd. |
| Benchmark | Nifty 50 Arbitrage | Nifty 50 Arbitrage |
| NAV | ₹10.3739 (2026-10-28) | ₹22.0566 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹22.33 Cr | ₹3,732.805 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.15% | 1.47% |
| Inception | 2026-02-23 | 2014-06-26 |
Returns
Arbitrage funds target a small, steady spread, so a rolling return band would show a flat line rather than anything informative.
Risk Metrics
Arbitrage funds target a small, steady spread rather than market returns, so beta and alpha against an equity index describe nothing useful.
Portfolio Analytics
HSBC Arbitrage 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.
| Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth | HSBC Arbitrage Fund - Direct Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 16.2094 | 17.3009 |
| P/B Ratio | 6.656 | 6.656 |
| Dividend Yield | 1.3914% | 1.275% |
| Active Share | - | - |
| Portfolio Turnover | - | - |
| YTM | 5.5% | - |
| Duration (Macaulay) | - | - |
Punji Fund Health Score
Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth or HSBC Arbitrage Fund?
Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.32 percentage points lower than HSBC Arbitrage 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 Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth and HSBC Arbitrage Fund show risk metrics like Sharpe ratio or alpha?
Arbitrage funds target a small, steady spread rather than market returns, so beta and alpha against an equity index describe nothing useful. 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, Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth or HSBC Arbitrage Fund?
HSBC Arbitrage Fund has ₹3,733 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹22 Cr for Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-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, Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth or HSBC Arbitrage Fund?
HSBC Arbitrage Fund launched on 2014-06-26, making it older than Capitalmind Arbitrage Fund-Direct-Growth (launched 2026-02-23). 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.