COMPARE
Edelweiss Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan vs ICICI Prudential Ultra Short Term Fund - Direct Plan - Growth
Edelweiss Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan and ICICI Prudential Ultra Short Term Fund are both in the Ultra Short Duration Fund category, from Edelweiss Asset Management Limited and ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited respectively. Edelweiss Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Edelweiss Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.19 percentage points.
| Edelweiss Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan | ICICI Prudential Ultra Short Term Fund - Direct Plan - Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Ultra Short Duration Fund | Ultra Short Duration Fund |
| AMC | Edelweiss Asset Management Limited | ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited |
| Benchmark | CRISIL Ultra Short Duration Debt A-I Index | No benchmark required for this fund category |
| NAV | ₹1009.3571 (2026-10-28) | ₹32.582 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹968.007 Cr | ₹14,955.63 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.21% | 0.4% |
| Inception | 2026-08-17 | 2011-04-14 |
Returns
This fund is less than a year old, so there is not yet enough history to calculate rolling returns.
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
Edelweiss Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan and ICICI Prudential Ultra Short Term Fund carry the same Punji Quality grade.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Edelweiss Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan or ICICI Prudential Ultra Short Term Fund?
Edelweiss Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.19 percentage points lower than ICICI Prudential Ultra Short Term 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 Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan and ICICI Prudential Ultra Short Term Fund 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 Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan or ICICI Prudential Ultra Short Term Fund?
ICICI Prudential Ultra Short Term Fund has ₹14,956 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹968 Cr for Edelweiss Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan. 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 Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan or ICICI Prudential Ultra Short Term Fund?
ICICI Prudential Ultra Short Term Fund launched on 2011-04-14, making it older than Edelweiss Ultra Short Term Fund Direct Growth Plan (launched 2026-08-17). 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.