COMPARE
Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan vs HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield Fund - Growth Direct
Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund and HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield Fund are both in the FoF Overseas category, from Edelweiss Asset Management Limited and HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Ltd. respectively. Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.14 percentage points.
| Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan | HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield Fund - Growth Direct | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | FoF Overseas | FoF Overseas |
| AMC | Edelweiss Asset Management Limited | HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Ltd. |
| Benchmark | MSCI Europe Index (IEUR ETF) | MSCI AC Asia Pacific ex Japan (AAXJ ETF) |
| NAV | ₹33.536 (2026-10-30) | ₹36.8863 (2026-10-30) |
| AUM | ₹264.892 Cr | ₹81.911 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.68% | 0.82% |
| Inception | 2014-01-17 | 2014-02-03 |
Returns
Rolling returns are not available for this fund yet.
Risk Metrics
HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield Fund has been the more volatile of the two by standard deviation.
Portfolio Analytics
Punji Fund Health Score
HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund or HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield Fund?
Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.14 percentage points lower than HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield 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 Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund or HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield Fund?
By standard deviation (a measure of how much a fund's returns swing around its own average), HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield Fund has been more volatile than Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore 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 (1.35 for Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund vs 1.15 for HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield 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 Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund or HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield Fund?
Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund has ₹265 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹82 Cr for HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield 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 Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund or HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield Fund?
Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund launched on 2014-01-17, making it older than HSBC Asia Pacific (Ex Japan) Dividend Yield Fund (launched 2014-02-03). 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 2026-11-01. Source: AMFI disclosures via Punji. Not investment advice.