COMPARE
LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund-Direct Plan-Growth vs WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund Direct Plan Growth
LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund- and WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund are both in the Dividend Yield Fund category, from LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited and WhiteOak Capital Asset Management Limited respectively. LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund- has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund- has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 7.61 percentage points.
| LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund-Direct Plan-Growth | WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund Direct Plan Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Dividend Yield Fund | Dividend Yield Fund |
| AMC | LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited | WhiteOak Capital Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | Nifty 500 TRI | BSE 500 TRI |
| NAV | ₹33.7148 (2026-10-30) | ₹9.842 (2026-10-30) |
| AUM | ₹717.029 Cr | ₹499.02 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.96% | 8.57% |
| Inception | 2018-12-03 | 2026-08-10 |
Returns
This fund is less than a year old, so there is not yet enough history to calculate rolling 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 Dividend Yield 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.
| LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund-Direct Plan-Growth | WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund Direct Plan Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 25.0958 | 16.6095 |
| P/B Ratio | 4.6626 | 4.2395 |
| Dividend Yield | 0.8258% | 1.9727% |
| Active Share | 74.62% | 82.27% |
| Portfolio Turnover | 52% | - |
| YTM | - | 5.3557% |
| Duration (Macaulay) | - | - |
Punji Fund Health Score
LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund- and WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund carry the same Punji Quality grade.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund- or WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund?
LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund-'s direct-plan expense ratio is 7.61 percentage points lower than WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield 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 LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund- and WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield 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, LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund- or WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund?
LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund- has ₹717 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹499 Cr for WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield 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, LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund- or WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund?
LIC MF Dividend Yield Fund- launched on 2018-12-03, making it older than WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund (launched 2026-08-10). 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 2026-11-01. Source: AMFI disclosures via Punji. Not investment advice.