COMPARE
Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund - Growth - Direct vs UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth - Direct
Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund and UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth are both in the Medium to Long Duration Fund category, from Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited. and UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. respectively. UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.53 percentage points.
| Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund - Growth - Direct | UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth - Direct | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Medium to Long Duration Fund | Medium to Long Duration Fund |
| AMC | Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company 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 | ₹89.5252 (2026-10-28) | ₹82.5853 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹1,747.958 Cr | ₹299.867 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.74% | 1.27% |
| Inception | 1999-11-25 | 1998-05-04 |
Returns
UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (7.7% vs Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund's 7.5%) - 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, Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund 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 Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund's 7.5%. UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth sits in the 83rd percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 50th percentile for Kotak Medium to Long Term 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 Medium to Long Term Fund or UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth?
Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.53 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 Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund 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, Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund or UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth?
Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund has ₹1,748 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹300 Cr for UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-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 Medium to Long Term Fund or UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth?
UTI Medium to Long Term Fund-Growth launched on 1998-05-04, making it older than Kotak Medium to Long Term Fund (launched 1999-11-25). 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.