COMPARE
Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund -Direct Plan-Growth Option vs quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan
Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - and quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund are both in the Dynamic Asset Allocation or Balanced Advantage category, from Edelweiss Asset Management Limited and quant Money Managers Limited respectively. quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.78 percentage points.
| Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund -Direct Plan-Growth Option | quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Dynamic Asset Allocation or Balanced Advantage | Dynamic Asset Allocation or Balanced Advantage |
| AMC | Edelweiss Asset Management Limited | quant Money Managers Limited |
| Benchmark | NIFTY 50 Hybrid Composite Debt 50:50 Index | NIFTY 50 Hybrid Composite Debt 50:50 Index |
| NAV | ₹59.52 (2026-10-28) | ₹16.3281 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹12,747.431 Cr | ₹785.655 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.81% | 1.59% |
| Inception | 2009-08-03 | 2023-03-23 |
Returns
quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (18.4% vs Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund -'s 13.0%) - see the FAQ below for percentile context within each fund's own category.
Risk Metrics
quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund has been the more volatile of the two by standard deviation.
| Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund -Direct Plan-Growth Option | quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan | |
|---|---|---|
| 3Y Sharpe Ratio | 0.24 | 0.27 |
| 3Y Alpha | -1.0534% | -0.5242% |
| 3Y Std Deviation | 8.9872% | 13.7165% |
| 3Y Calmar Ratio | 0.83 | 0.58 |
Portfolio Analytics
Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - carries the higher portfolio YTM.
| Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund -Direct Plan-Growth Option | quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 22.4599 | 29.0582 |
| P/B Ratio | 8.1847 | - |
| Dividend Yield | 1.2862% | 0.931% |
| Active Share | - | - |
| Portfolio Turnover | 63% | - |
| YTM | 5.88% | 5.3228% |
| Duration (Macaulay) | 0.84 yrs | - |
Punji Fund Health Score
quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - or quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund?
quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund's 3-year rolling CAGR of 18.4% is higher than Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund -'s 13.0%. quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund sits in the 100th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 72nd percentile for Edelweiss Balanced Advantage 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, Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - or quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund?
Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund -'s direct-plan expense ratio is 0.78 percentage points lower than quant Dynamic Asset Allocation 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.
Which fund carries more risk, Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - or quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund?
By standard deviation (a measure of how much a fund's returns swing around its own average), quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund has been more volatile than Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - 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 (0.24 for Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - vs 0.27 for quant Dynamic Asset Allocation 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, Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - or quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund?
Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - has ₹12,747 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹786 Cr for quant Dynamic Asset Allocation 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), Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - or quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund?
Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund -'s portfolio YTM (5.88%) is higher than quant Dynamic Asset Allocation 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 fund has a longer track record, Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - or quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund?
Edelweiss Balanced Advantage Fund - launched on 2009-08-03, making it older than quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund (launched 2023-03-23). 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.