COMPARE
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct - Growth vs LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund-Direct Plan-Growth
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct and LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund- are both in the Banking and PSU Fund category, from Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited. and LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited respectively. Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund- has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund- has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.12 percentage points.
| Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct - Growth | LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund-Direct Plan-Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Banking and PSU Fund | Banking and PSU Fund |
| AMC | Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited. | LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | CRISIL Banking and PSU Debt A-II Index | NIFTY Banking & PSU Debt Index A-II |
| NAV | ₹72.4068 (2026-10-28) | ₹39.994 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹4,702.909 Cr | ₹1,593.582 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.4016% | 0.28% |
| Inception | 2000-01-02 | 2007-05-28 |
Returns
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (8.0% vs LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund-'s 7.7%) - 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
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct carries the higher portfolio YTM.
Punji Fund Health Score
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct and LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund- carry the same Punji Quality grade.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct or LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund-?
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct's 3-year rolling CAGR of 8.0% is higher than LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund-'s 7.7%. Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct sits in the 95th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 63rd percentile for LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt 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, Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct or LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund-?
LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund-'s direct-plan expense ratio is 0.12 percentage points lower than Kotak Banking and PSU Debt 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 Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct and LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt 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, Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct or LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund-?
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct has ₹4,703 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹1,594 Cr for LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt 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), Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct or LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund-?
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct's portfolio YTM (7.44%) is higher than LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt 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), Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct or LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund-?
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct 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, Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct or LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund-?
Kotak Banking and PSU Debt Direct launched on 2000-01-02, making it older than LIC MF Banking & PSU Debt Fund- (launched 2007-05-28). 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.