COMPARE
Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund - Direct Plan - Growth vs Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan- Growth Option
Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund and Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- are both in the Thematic Fund category, from Mirae Asset Investment Managers (India) Pvt. Ltd and Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited respectively. Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.75 percentage points.
| Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund - Direct Plan - Growth | Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan- Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Thematic Fund | Thematic Fund |
| AMC | Mirae Asset Investment Managers (India) Pvt. Ltd | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | BSE Healthcare TRI | S&P JAPAN 500 TRI |
| NAV | ₹50.875 (2026-10-28) | ₹31.1282 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹3,497.63 Cr | ₹340.048 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.62% | 1.37% |
| Inception | 2018-06-11 | 2014-08-08 |
Returns
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (8.2% vs Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund's 23.0%) - see the FAQ below for percentile context within each fund's own category.
Risk Metrics
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- has been the more volatile of the two by standard deviation.
| Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund - Direct Plan - Growth | Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan- Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| 3Y Sharpe Ratio | 0.88 | 0.94 |
| 3Y Alpha | 1.0172% | 8.5478% |
| 3Y Std Deviation | 14.4793% | 15.5762% |
| 3Y Calmar Ratio | 1.24 | 1.38 |
Portfolio Analytics
Punji Fund Health Score
Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund or Nippon India Japan Equity Fund-?
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund-'s 3-year rolling CAGR of 8.2% is higher than Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund's 23.0%. Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- sits in the 13th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 87th percentile for Mirae Asset Healthcare 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, Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund or Nippon India Japan Equity Fund-?
Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.75 percentage points lower than Nippon India Japan Equity 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, Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund or Nippon India Japan Equity Fund-?
By standard deviation (a measure of how much a fund's returns swing around its own average), Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- has been more volatile than Mirae Asset Healthcare 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 (0.88 for Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund vs 0.94 for Nippon India Japan Equity 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, Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund or Nippon India Japan Equity Fund-?
Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund has ₹3,498 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹340 Cr for Nippon India Japan Equity 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, Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund or Nippon India Japan Equity Fund-?
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- launched on 2014-08-08, making it older than Mirae Asset Healthcare Fund (launched 2018-06-11). 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.