COMPARE
JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) - Growth Option vs UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth - Direct
JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) and UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth are both in the Medium to Long Duration Fund category, from JM Financial Asset Management Limited and UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. respectively. UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.68 percentage points.
| JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) - Growth Option | UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth - Direct | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Medium to Long Duration Fund | Medium to Long Duration Fund |
| AMC | JM Financial Asset Management Limited | UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. |
| Benchmark | CRISIL Medium to Long Duration Debt A-III Index | CRISIL Medium to Long Duration Debt A-III Index |
| NAV | ₹71.3183 (2026-10-28) | ₹82.5853 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹28.675 Cr | ₹299.867 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.59% | 1.27% |
| Inception | 2013-01-01 | 1998-05-04 |
Returns
UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (7.7% vs JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct)'s 5.2%) - 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
UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) or UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth?
UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth's 3-year rolling CAGR of 7.7% is higher than JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct)'s 5.2%. UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth sits in the 83rd percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 8th percentile for JM Medium to Long Term 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 Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) or UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth?
JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct)'s direct-plan expense ratio is 0.68 percentage points lower than UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth'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 Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) and UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth 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, JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) or UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth?
UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth has ₹300 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹29 Cr for JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct). 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 longer duration (more interest-rate sensitivity), JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) or UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth?
UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth 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, JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) or UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth?
UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth launched on 1998-05-04, making it older than JM Medium to Long Term Fund (Direct) (launched 2013-01-01). 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.