COMPARE
Invesco India Technology Fund - Direct Plan - Growth vs Nippon India Power & Infra Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option
Invesco India Technology Fund and Nippon India Power & Infra Fund are both in the Sectoral Fund category, from Invesco Asset Management (India) Private Limited and Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited respectively. Invesco India Technology Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Invesco India Technology Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.08 percentage points.
| Invesco India Technology Fund - Direct Plan - Growth | Nippon India Power & Infra Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Sectoral Fund | Sectoral Fund |
| AMC | Invesco Asset Management (India) Private Limited | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | Nifty IT TRI | Nifty Infrastructure TRI |
| NAV | ₹10.17 (2026-10-28) | ₹382.3478 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹341 Cr | ₹7,467.512 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.02% | 1.1% |
| Inception | 2024-09-03 | 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
Invesco India Technology 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.
| Invesco India Technology Fund - Direct Plan - Growth | Nippon India Power & Infra Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 31.9067 | 24.2147 |
| P/B Ratio | 4.4922 | 9.9087 |
| Dividend Yield | 1.2432% | 1.0342% |
| Active Share | 67.56% | 67.11% |
| Portfolio Turnover | 40% | 46% |
| YTM | - | - |
| Duration (Macaulay) | - | - |
Punji Fund Health Score
Invesco India Technology Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Invesco India Technology Fund or Nippon India Power & Infra Fund?
Invesco India Technology Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.08 percentage points lower than Nippon India Power & Infra 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 Invesco India Technology 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, Invesco India Technology Fund or Nippon India Power & Infra Fund?
Nippon India Power & Infra Fund has ₹7,468 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹341 Cr for Invesco India Technology 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, Invesco India Technology Fund or Nippon India Power & Infra Fund?
Nippon India Power & Infra Fund launched on 2004-03-29, making it older than Invesco India Technology Fund (launched 2024-09-03). 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.