PunjiPUNJI

COMPARE

Groww Banking & Financial Services Fund - Direct Plan - Growth vs WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund - Direct Growth

Groww Banking & Financial Services Fund and WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund are both in the Sectoral Fund category, from Groww Asset Management Limited and WhiteOak Capital Asset Management Limited respectively. WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.

Basics

WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.18 percentage points.

Groww Banking & Financial Services Fund - Direct Plan - GrowthWhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund - Direct Growth
CategorySectoral FundSectoral Fund
AMCGroww Asset Management LimitedWhiteOak Capital Asset Management Limited
BenchmarkNifty Financial Services TRINifty Financial Services TRI
NAV₹12.2468 (2026-10-28)₹12.459 (2026-10-28)
AUM₹89.44 Cr₹619.34 Cr
Expense Ratio (Direct)1.26%1.08%
Inception2024-01-172024-01-16

Returns

Risk Metrics

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

Portfolio Analytics

Groww Banking & Financial Services 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

Groww Banking & Financial Services Fund and WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund carry the same Punji Quality grade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has a lower expense ratio, Groww Banking & Financial Services Fund or WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund?

WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.18 percentage points lower than Groww Banking & Financial Services 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 Groww Banking & Financial Services Fund and WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services 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, Groww Banking & Financial Services Fund or WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund?

WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund has ₹619 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹89 Cr for Groww Banking & Financial Services 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, Groww Banking & Financial Services Fund or WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund?

WhiteOak Capital Banking & Financial Services Fund launched on 2024-01-16, making it older than Groww Banking & Financial Services Fund (launched 2024-01-17). 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.