COMPARE
DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D - Direct - Growth vs IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B - Growth - Direct
DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D and IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B are both in the Income category, from DSP Asset Managers Private Limited and IL&FS Infra Asset Management Limited respectively. DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
| DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D - Direct - Growth | IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B - Growth - Direct | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Income | Income |
| AMC | DSP Asset Managers Private Limited | IL&FS Infra Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | CRISIL Medium to Long Duration Debt A-III Index | CRISIL Medium to Long Duration Debt A-III Index |
| NAV | ₹13.4823 (2026-10-22) | ₹2540201.9508 (2026-10-22) |
| AUM | ₹55.35 Cr | - |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.1% | - |
| Inception | 2021-09-07 | 2014-03-03 |
Returns
DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (7.4% vs IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B's 26.5%) - 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 2B carries the higher portfolio YTM.
Punji Fund Health Score
IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D or IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B?
DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D's 3-year rolling CAGR of 7.4% is higher than IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B's 26.5%. DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D sits in the 55th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 95th percentile for IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B - 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 DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D and IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B 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), DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D or IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B?
IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B's portfolio YTM (9.7173%) is higher than DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D'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, DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D or IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B?
IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund Series 2B launched on 2014-03-03, making it older than DSP FMP Series - 264 - 60M - 17D (launched 2021-09-07). 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 2026-10-25. Source: AMFI disclosures via Punji. Not investment advice.