COMPARE
HDFC Gold ETF Fund of Fund - Direct Plan vs Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active FOF - Direct Plan Growth Option
HDFC Gold ETF Fund of Fund and Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active FOF are both in the FoF Domestic category, from HDFC Asset Management Company Limited and Tata Asset Management Limited respectively. Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active FOF has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active FOF has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.10 percentage points.
| HDFC Gold ETF Fund of Fund - Direct Plan | Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active FOF - Direct Plan Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | FoF Domestic | FoF Domestic |
| AMC | HDFC Asset Management Company Limited | Tata Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | Domestic Gold Price (GOLDBEES) | 60% CRISIL Composite Bond Index + 40% Nifty 50 Arbitrage |
| NAV | ₹44.1363 (2026-10-28) | ₹10.7234 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹11,714.865 Cr | ₹269.68 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| Inception | 2011-10-07 | 2025-05-05 |
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
Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active FOF has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, HDFC Gold ETF Fund of Fund or Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active FOF?
Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active FOF's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.10 percentage points lower than HDFC Gold ETF Fund of 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 HDFC Gold ETF Fund of Fund and Tata Income Plus Arbitrage 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, HDFC Gold ETF Fund of Fund or Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active FOF?
HDFC Gold ETF Fund of Fund has ₹11,715 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹270 Cr for Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active 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, HDFC Gold ETF Fund of Fund or Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active FOF?
HDFC Gold ETF Fund of Fund launched on 2011-10-07, making it older than Tata Income Plus Arbitrage Active FOF (launched 2025-05-05). 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.