PunjiPUNJI

COMPARE

Edelweiss Consumption Fund - Direct - Growth vs quant BFSI Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan

Edelweiss Consumption Fund and quant BFSI Fund are both in the Sectoral/ Thematic category, from Edelweiss Asset Management Limited and quant Money Managers Limited respectively. Edelweiss Consumption Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.

Basics

Edelweiss Consumption Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 1.00 percentage points.

Edelweiss Consumption Fund - Direct - Growthquant BFSI Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan
CategorySectoral/ ThematicSectoral/ Thematic
AMCEdelweiss Asset Management Limitedquant Money Managers Limited
BenchmarkNifty India Consumption TRINifty Financial Services TRI
NAV₹10.6516 (2026-10-28)₹19.4632 (2026-10-28)
AUM₹427.341 Cr₹854.191 Cr
Expense Ratio (Direct)0.95%1.95%
Inception2025-01-312023-06-01

Returns

Risk Metrics

This fund is less than three years old, so a three-year risk history does not exist yet.

Portfolio Analytics

Edelweiss Consumption 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.

Punji Fund Health Score

Edelweiss Consumption Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.

Frequently asked questions

Which has a lower expense ratio, Edelweiss Consumption Fund or quant BFSI Fund?

Edelweiss Consumption Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 1.00 percentage points lower than quant BFSI 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 Edelweiss Consumption Fund and quant BFSI Fund show risk metrics like Sharpe ratio or alpha?

This fund is less than three years old, so a three-year risk history does not exist yet. 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 Consumption Fund or quant BFSI Fund?

quant BFSI Fund has ₹854 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹427 Cr for Edelweiss Consumption 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 Consumption Fund or quant BFSI Fund?

quant BFSI Fund launched on 2023-06-01, making it older than Edelweiss Consumption Fund (launched 2025-01-31). 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.