COMPARE
Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund - Direct - GROWTH vs UTI Corporate Bond Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option
Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund and UTI Corporate Bond Fund are both in the Corporate Bond Fund category, from Franklin Templeton Asset Management (India) Private Limited and UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. respectively. Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.06 percentage points.
| Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund - Direct - GROWTH | UTI Corporate Bond Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Corporate Bond Fund | Corporate Bond Fund |
| AMC | Franklin Templeton Asset Management (India) Private Limited | UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. |
| Benchmark | NIFTY Corporate Bond Index A-II | NIFTY Corporate Bond Index A-II |
| NAV | ₹116.2776 (2026-10-28) | ₹17.8341 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹1,399.53 Cr | ₹4,554.384 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.26% | 0.32% |
| Inception | 1997-06-24 | 2018-07-23 |
Returns
Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (8.4% vs UTI Corporate Bond Fund's 7.0%) - 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
Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund carries the higher portfolio YTM.
Punji Fund Health Score
Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund or UTI Corporate Bond Fund?
Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund's 3-year rolling CAGR of 8.4% is higher than UTI Corporate Bond Fund's 7.0%. Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund sits in the 100th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 24th percentile for UTI Corporate Bond 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, Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund or UTI Corporate Bond Fund?
Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.06 percentage points lower than UTI Corporate Bond 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 Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund and UTI Corporate Bond 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, Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund or UTI Corporate Bond Fund?
UTI Corporate Bond Fund has ₹4,554 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹1,400 Cr for Franklin India Corporate 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 has a higher yield to maturity (YTM), Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund or UTI Corporate Bond Fund?
Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund's portfolio YTM (7.8194%) is higher than UTI Corporate Bond Fund's. YTM is the weighted-average return a debt fund's current bond holdings would earn if held to maturity, assuming no defaults and coupons reinvested at the same rate - a useful forward-looking yield estimate for debt funds the way rolling CAGR is for equity funds, though it's an estimate based on today's portfolio, not a guaranteed return, and can move as bonds are bought/sold or as interest rates change.
Which has longer duration (more interest-rate sensitivity), Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund or UTI Corporate Bond Fund?
UTI Corporate Bond Fund has the longer Macaulay duration of the two, meaning its NAV is more sensitive to interest-rate changes - a longer-duration debt fund tends to gain more when rates fall and lose more when rates rise, compared to a shorter-duration fund. Duration is expressed in years but isn't literally about how long you hold the fund; it's a measure of price sensitivity to rate moves. If you expect rates to fall, the longer-duration fund benefits more; if you expect rates to rise or want to minimize that swing, the shorter-duration fund is the more conservative pick.
Which fund has a longer track record, Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund or UTI Corporate Bond Fund?
Franklin India Corporate Debt Fund launched on 1997-06-24, making it older than UTI Corporate Bond Fund (launched 2018-07-23). 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.