COMPARE
DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF Direct Plan - Growth vs Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option
DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF and Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund are both in the FoF Overseas category, from DSP Asset Managers Private Limited and Edelweiss Asset Management Limited respectively. DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 1.03 percentage points.
| DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF Direct Plan - Growth | Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | FoF Overseas | FoF Overseas |
| AMC | DSP Asset Managers Private Limited | Edelweiss Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | MSCI ACWI IMI Clean Energy (ICLN ETF) | MSCI GOLDEN DRAGON (INR) |
| NAV | ₹27.8636 (2026-10-28) | ₹66.655 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹99.948 Cr | ₹2,701.504 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.78% | 0.75% |
| Inception | 2009-07-10 | 2009-07-09 |
Returns
DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (3.9% vs Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund's 12.8%) - see the FAQ below for percentile context within each fund's own category.
Risk Metrics
Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund has been the more volatile of the two by standard deviation.
Portfolio Analytics
Punji Fund Health Score
Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF or Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund?
DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF's 3-year rolling CAGR of 3.9% is higher than Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund's 12.8%. DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF sits in the 9th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 50th percentile for Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore 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, DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF or Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund?
Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 1.03 percentage points lower than DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni 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.
Which fund carries more risk, DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF or Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund?
By standard deviation (a measure of how much a fund's returns swing around its own average), Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund has been more volatile than DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF over the trailing window. Standard deviation captures total volatility in both directions - up and down - so a higher figure means bigger swings generally, not necessarily bigger losses specifically. Sharpe ratio (0.57 for DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF vs 0.59 for Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund) is a better single measure of risk-adjusted return, since it weighs the return earned per unit of volatility taken rather than volatility alone.
Which has higher AUM, DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF or Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund?
Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund has ₹2,702 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹100 Cr for DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF. 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, DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF or Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund?
Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund launched on 2009-07-09, making it older than DSP Global Clean Energy Overseas Equity Omni FoF (launched 2009-07-10). 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.