COMPARE
Groww Gold ETF FOF - DIRECT - GROWTH vs ICICI Prudential Dynamic Asset Allocation Active FOF - Direct Plan - Growth
Groww Gold ETF FOF and ICICI Prudential Dynamic Asset Allocation Active FOF are both in the FoF Domestic category, from Groww Asset Management Limited and ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited respectively. Groww Gold ETF FOF has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Groww Gold ETF FOF has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.28 percentage points.
| Groww Gold ETF FOF - DIRECT - GROWTH | ICICI Prudential Dynamic Asset Allocation Active FOF - Direct Plan - Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | FoF Domestic | FoF Domestic |
| AMC | Groww Asset Management Limited | ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited |
| Benchmark | Domestic Gold Price (GOLDBEES) | CRISIL Hybrid 50+50 - Moderate Index |
| NAV | ₹17.3648 (2026-10-28) | ₹133.8439 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹129.532 Cr | ₹26,841.012 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.14% | 0.42% |
| Inception | 2024-10-16 | 2003-12-19 |
Returns
Risk Metrics
This is a fund of funds. Its risk profile belongs to the schemes it holds, not to a benchmark of its own.
Portfolio Analytics
Punji Fund Health Score
Groww Gold ETF FOF has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Groww Gold ETF FOF or ICICI Prudential Dynamic Asset Allocation Active FOF?
Groww Gold ETF FOF's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.28 percentage points lower than ICICI Prudential Dynamic Asset Allocation Active FOF'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 Gold ETF FOF and ICICI Prudential Dynamic Asset Allocation Active FOF show risk metrics like Sharpe ratio or alpha?
This is a fund of funds. Its risk profile belongs to the schemes it holds, not to a benchmark of its own. 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 Gold ETF FOF or ICICI Prudential Dynamic Asset Allocation Active FOF?
ICICI Prudential Dynamic Asset Allocation Active FOF has ₹26,841 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹130 Cr for Groww Gold ETF 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, Groww Gold ETF FOF or ICICI Prudential Dynamic Asset Allocation Active FOF?
ICICI Prudential Dynamic Asset Allocation Active FOF launched on 2003-12-19, making it older than Groww Gold ETF FOF (launched 2024-10-16). 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.