COMPARE
Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option vs Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct - Growth
Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund and Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct are both in the Banking and PSU Fund category, from Edelweiss Asset Management Limited and Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited. respectively. Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.00 percentage points.
| Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct - Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Banking and PSU Fund | Banking and PSU Fund |
| AMC | Edelweiss Asset Management Limited | Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited. |
| Benchmark | CRISIL Banking and PSU Debt A-II Index | CRISIL Banking and PSU Debt A-II Index |
| NAV | ₹27.0971 (2026-10-28) | ₹72.4068 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹3,134.762 Cr | ₹4,702.909 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.4% | 0.4016% |
| Inception | 2013-08-26 | 2000-01-02 |
Returns
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (8.0% vs Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund's 7.7%) - 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
Punji Fund Health Score
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund or Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct?
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct's 3-year rolling CAGR of 8.0% is higher than Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund's 7.7%. Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct sits in the 95th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 53rd percentile for Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt 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 Banking and PSU Debt Fund or Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct?
Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.00 percentage points lower than Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct'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 Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund and Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct 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, Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund or Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct?
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct has ₹4,703 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹3,135 Cr for Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt 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 fund has a longer track record, Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund or Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct?
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct launched on 2000-01-02, making it older than Edelweiss Banking and PSU Debt Fund (launched 2013-08-26). 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.