COMPARE
ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund - Direct Plan - Growth vs Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option
ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund and Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund are both in the Dynamic Bond category, from ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited and Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited respectively. ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.28 percentage points.
| ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund - Direct Plan - Growth | Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Dynamic Bond | Dynamic Bond |
| AMC | ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | NIFTY Composite Debt Index A-III | NIFTY Composite Debt Index A-III |
| NAV | ₹42.0725 (2026-10-28) | ₹41.9491 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹12,526.345 Cr | ₹3,658.2 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.63% | 0.35% |
| Inception | 2008-03-12 | 2004-10-16 |
Returns
ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (8.9% vs Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund's 7.6%) - 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
Punji Fund Health Score
ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund or Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund?
ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund's 3-year rolling CAGR of 8.9% is higher than Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund's 7.6%. ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund sits in the 100th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 64th percentile for Nippon India Dynamic Term 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, ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund or Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund?
Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.28 percentage points lower than ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term 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 ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund and Nippon India Dynamic Term 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, ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund or Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund?
ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund has ₹12,526 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹3,658 Cr for Nippon India Dynamic Term 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, ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund or Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund?
Nippon India Dynamic Term Fund launched on 2004-10-16, making it older than ICICI Prudential Dynamic Term Fund (launched 2008-03-12). 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.