COMPARE
Helios Financial Services Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option vs Nippon India Power & Infra Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option
Helios Financial Services Fund and Nippon India Power & Infra Fund are both in the Sectoral Fund category, from Helios Capital Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited respectively. Nippon India Power & Infra Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Nippon India Power & Infra Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.05 percentage points.
| Helios Financial Services Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | Nippon India Power & Infra Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Sectoral Fund | Sectoral Fund |
| AMC | Helios Capital Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | Nifty Financial Services TRI | Nifty Infrastructure TRI |
| NAV | ₹10.97 (2026-10-28) | ₹382.3478 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹210.799 Cr | ₹7,467.512 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.15% | 1.1% |
| Inception | 2024-05-31 | 2004-03-29 |
Returns
Risk Metrics
This fund is less than three years old, so a three-year risk history does not exist yet.
Portfolio Analytics
Nippon India Power & Infra 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.
| Helios Financial Services Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | Nippon India Power & Infra Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 23.5727 | 24.2147 |
| P/B Ratio | - | 9.9087 |
| Dividend Yield | 0.8269% | 1.0342% |
| Active Share | 53.65% | 67.11% |
| Portfolio Turnover | 49% | 46% |
| YTM | - | - |
| Duration (Macaulay) | - | - |
Punji Fund Health Score
Helios Financial Services Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Helios Financial Services Fund or Nippon India Power & Infra Fund?
Nippon India Power & Infra Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.05 percentage points lower than Helios 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 Helios Financial Services Fund and Nippon India Power & Infra 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, Helios Financial Services Fund or Nippon India Power & Infra Fund?
Nippon India Power & Infra Fund has ₹7,468 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹211 Cr for Helios 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, Helios Financial Services Fund or Nippon India Power & Infra Fund?
Nippon India Power & Infra Fund launched on 2004-03-29, making it older than Helios Financial Services Fund (launched 2024-05-31). 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.