COMPARE
Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund - Direct Plan -Growth vs Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan-Growth Option
Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund and Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- are both in the Equity Savings category, from Mahindra Manulife Investment Management Pvt Ltd and Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited respectively. Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.29 percentage points.
| Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund - Direct Plan -Growth | Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan-Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Equity Savings | Equity Savings |
| AMC | Mahindra Manulife Investment Management Pvt Ltd | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | Nifty Equity Savings TRI | Nifty Equity Savings TRI |
| NAV | ₹25.2815 (2026-10-28) | ₹17.8922 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹515.54 Cr | ₹730.609 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.24% | 0.95% |
| Inception | 2017-01-10 | 2015-05-12 |
Returns
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (7.8% vs Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund's 11.9%) - see the FAQ below for percentile context within each fund's own category.
Risk Metrics
Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund has been the more volatile of the two by standard deviation.
Portfolio Analytics
Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings 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.
| Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund - Direct Plan -Growth | Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan-Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 22.4026 | 20.9745 |
| P/B Ratio | 3.55 | 6.656 |
| Dividend Yield | 1.0691% | 1.461% |
| Active Share | - | - |
| Portfolio Turnover | 71% | 570% |
| YTM | 7.923% | - |
| Duration (Macaulay) | 2.19 yrs | 2.97 yrs |
Punji Fund Health Score
Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund or Nippon India Equity Savings Fund-?
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund-'s 3-year rolling CAGR of 7.8% is higher than Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund's 11.9%. Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- sits in the 10th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 86th percentile for Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings 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, Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund or Nippon India Equity Savings Fund-?
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund-'s direct-plan expense ratio is 0.29 percentage points lower than Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings 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.
Which fund carries more risk, Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund or Nippon India Equity Savings Fund-?
By standard deviation (a measure of how much a fund's returns swing around its own average), Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund has been more volatile than Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- over the trailing window. Standard deviation captures total volatility in both directions - up and down - so a higher figure means bigger swings generally, not necessarily bigger losses specifically. Sharpe ratio (0.28 for Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund vs -0.29 for Nippon India Equity Savings Fund-) is a better single measure of risk-adjusted return, since it weighs the return earned per unit of volatility taken rather than volatility alone.
Which has higher AUM, Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund or Nippon India Equity Savings Fund-?
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- has ₹731 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹516 Cr for Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings 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 longer duration (more interest-rate sensitivity), Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund or Nippon India Equity Savings Fund-?
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- 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, Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund or Nippon India Equity Savings Fund-?
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- launched on 2015-05-12, making it older than Mahindra Manulife Equity Savings Fund (launched 2017-01-10). 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 2026-10-29. Source: AMFI disclosures via Punji. Not investment advice.