COMPARE
Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth vs LIC MF Infrastructure Fund-Direct Plan-Growth
Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth and LIC MF Infrastructure Fund- are both in the Sectoral/ Thematic category, from Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited. and LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited respectively. Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.22 percentage points.
| Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth | LIC MF Infrastructure Fund-Direct Plan-Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Sectoral/ Thematic | Sectoral/ Thematic |
| AMC | Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited. | LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | Nifty Energy TRI | Nifty Infrastructure TRI |
| NAV | ₹9.902 (2026-10-28) | ₹59.1519 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹260.38 Cr | ₹1,102.82 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.1134% | 1.33% |
| Inception | 2025-04-03 | 2008-01-31 |
Returns
Risk Metrics
This fund is less than three years old, so a three-year risk history does not exist yet.
Portfolio Analytics
LIC MF Infrastructure 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.
| Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth | LIC MF Infrastructure Fund-Direct Plan-Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 15.1151 | 29.8606 |
| P/B Ratio | 15.3738 | 7.2862 |
| Dividend Yield | 2.2361% | 0.8311% |
| Active Share | 57.56% | 85.12% |
| Portfolio Turnover | 26.69% | 102% |
| YTM | - | - |
| Duration (Macaulay) | - | - |
Punji Fund Health Score
Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth or LIC MF Infrastructure Fund-?
Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.22 percentage points lower than LIC MF Infrastructure 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 Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth and LIC MF Infrastructure 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, Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth or LIC MF Infrastructure Fund-?
LIC MF Infrastructure Fund- has ₹1,103 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹260 Cr for Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth. 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, Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth or LIC MF Infrastructure Fund-?
LIC MF Infrastructure Fund- launched on 2008-01-31, making it older than Kotak Energy Opportunities Fund-Direct-Growth (launched 2025-04-03). 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.