COMPARE
JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) - Growth Option vs NJ Arbitrage Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option
JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) and NJ Arbitrage Fund are both in the Arbitrage Fund category, from JM Financial Asset Management Limited and NJ Asset Management Private Limited respectively. NJ Arbitrage Fund has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. NJ Arbitrage Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
NJ Arbitrage Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.36 percentage points.
| JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) - Growth Option | NJ Arbitrage Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Arbitrage Fund | Arbitrage Fund |
| AMC | JM Financial Asset Management Limited | NJ Asset Management Private Limited |
| Benchmark | Nifty 50 Arbitrage | Nifty 50 Arbitrage |
| NAV | ₹37.6755 (2026-10-28) | ₹13.2354 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹416.09 Cr | ₹240.39 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.43% | 1.07% |
| Inception | 2006-06-01 | 2022-07-29 |
Returns
NJ Arbitrage Fund leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (7.1% vs JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct)'s 6.2%) - see the FAQ below for percentile context within each fund's own category.
Risk Metrics
Arbitrage funds target a small, steady spread rather than market returns, so beta and alpha against an equity index describe nothing useful.
Portfolio Analytics
JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) 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.
| JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) - Growth Option | NJ Arbitrage Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 15.7282 | 15.4531 |
| P/B Ratio | 6.656 | - |
| Dividend Yield | 1.1251% | 1.1624% |
| Active Share | - | - |
| Portfolio Turnover | - | 94.8% |
| YTM | - | 5.394% |
| Duration (Macaulay) | - | 0.19 yrs |
Punji Fund Health Score
NJ Arbitrage Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) or NJ Arbitrage Fund?
NJ Arbitrage Fund's 3-year rolling CAGR of 7.1% is higher than JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct)'s 6.2%. NJ Arbitrage Fund sits in the 88th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 31st percentile for JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) - 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, JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) or NJ Arbitrage Fund?
NJ Arbitrage Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.36 percentage points lower than JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct)'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 JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) and NJ Arbitrage Fund show risk metrics like Sharpe ratio or alpha?
Arbitrage funds target a small, steady spread rather than market returns, so beta and alpha against an equity index describe nothing useful. 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, JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) or NJ Arbitrage Fund?
JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) has ₹416 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹240 Cr for NJ Arbitrage 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, JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) or NJ Arbitrage Fund?
JM Arbitrage Fund (Direct) launched on 2006-06-01, making it older than NJ Arbitrage Fund (launched 2022-07-29). 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.