COMPARE
HSBC Credit Risk Fund - Direct Growth vs UTI Credit Risk Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option
HSBC Credit Risk Fund and UTI Credit Risk Fund are both in the Credit Risk Fund category, from HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Ltd. and UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. respectively. UTI Credit Risk Fund has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. UTI Credit Risk Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
UTI Credit Risk Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.08 percentage points.
| HSBC Credit Risk Fund - Direct Growth | UTI Credit Risk Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Credit Risk Fund | Credit Risk Fund |
| AMC | HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Ltd. | UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. |
| Benchmark | NIFTY Credit Risk Bond Index B-II | CRISIL Credit Risk Debt B-II Index |
| NAV | ₹37.7746 (2026-10-28) | ₹20.8617 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹438.423 Cr | ₹238.616 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.84% | 0.76% |
| Inception | 2009-09-29 | 2012-10-25 |
Returns
UTI Credit Risk Fund leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (8.1% vs HSBC Credit Risk Fund's 11.8%) - 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
HSBC Credit Risk Fund carries the higher portfolio YTM.
Punji Fund Health Score
HSBC Credit Risk Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, HSBC Credit Risk Fund or UTI Credit Risk Fund?
UTI Credit Risk Fund's 3-year rolling CAGR of 8.1% is higher than HSBC Credit Risk Fund's 11.8%. UTI Credit Risk Fund sits in the 38th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 100th percentile for HSBC Credit Risk 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, HSBC Credit Risk Fund or UTI Credit Risk Fund?
UTI Credit Risk Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.08 percentage points lower than HSBC Credit Risk 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 HSBC Credit Risk Fund and UTI Credit Risk 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, HSBC Credit Risk Fund or UTI Credit Risk Fund?
HSBC Credit Risk Fund has ₹438 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹239 Cr for UTI Credit Risk 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), HSBC Credit Risk Fund or UTI Credit Risk Fund?
HSBC Credit Risk Fund's portfolio YTM (8.4225%) is higher than UTI Credit Risk 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), HSBC Credit Risk Fund or UTI Credit Risk Fund?
UTI Credit Risk 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, HSBC Credit Risk Fund or UTI Credit Risk Fund?
HSBC Credit Risk Fund launched on 2009-09-29, making it older than UTI Credit Risk Fund (launched 2012-10-25). 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.