COMPARE
Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option vs Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF- Direct Plan- Growth
Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund and Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF- are both in the FoF Overseas category, from Edelweiss Asset Management Limited and Navi AMC Limited respectively. Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF- has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF- has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF- has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.68 percentage points.
| Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF- Direct Plan- Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | FoF Overseas | FoF Overseas |
| AMC | Edelweiss Asset Management Limited | Navi AMC Limited |
| Benchmark | MSCI GOLDEN DRAGON (INR) | CRSP US Total Market Index |
| NAV | ₹66.655 (2026-10-28) | ₹22.9828 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹2,701.504 Cr | ₹1,065.98 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.75% | 0.07% |
| Inception | 2009-07-09 | 2022-02-04 |
Returns
Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF- leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (23.8% 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
Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF- has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund or Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF-?
Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF-'s 3-year rolling CAGR of 23.8% is higher than Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund's 12.8%. Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF- sits in the 85th 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, Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund or Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF-?
Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF-'s direct-plan expense ratio is 0.68 percentage points lower than Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore 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 Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund or Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF-?
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 Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive 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 (0.59 for Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund vs 1.34 for Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF-) 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 Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund or Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF-?
Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund has ₹2,702 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹1,066 Cr for Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive 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, Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund or Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF-?
Edelweiss Greater China Equity Off-shore Fund launched on 2009-07-09, making it older than Navi Total Stock Market US Specific Equity Passive FoF- (launched 2022-02-04). 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.