COMPARE
Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option vs Nippon India Power & Infra Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option
Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund and Nippon India Power & Infra Fund are both in the Sectoral Fund category, from Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited. Nippon India Power & Infra Fund has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.03 percentage points.
| Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option | Nippon India Power & Infra Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Sectoral Fund | Sectoral Fund |
| AMC | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | Nifty Financial Services TRI | Nifty Infrastructure TRI |
| NAV | ₹653.7325 (2026-10-28) | ₹382.3478 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹7,269.633 Cr | ₹7,467.512 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.07% | 1.1% |
| Inception | 2003-05-08 | 2004-03-29 |
Returns
Nippon India Power & Infra Fund leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (18.0% vs Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund's 16.5%) - see the FAQ below for percentile context within each fund's own category.
Risk Metrics
Nippon India Power & Infra Fund has been the more volatile of the two by standard deviation.
Portfolio Analytics
Nippon India Power & Infra 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.
Punji Fund Health Score
Nippon India Power & Infra Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund or Nippon India Power & Infra Fund?
Nippon India Power & Infra Fund's 3-year rolling CAGR of 18.0% is higher than Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund's 16.5%. Nippon India Power & Infra Fund sits in the 33rd percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 22nd percentile for Nippon India Banking & Financial Services 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, Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund or Nippon India Power & Infra Fund?
Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.03 percentage points lower than Nippon India Power & Infra 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, Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund or Nippon India Power & Infra Fund?
By standard deviation (a measure of how much a fund's returns swing around its own average), Nippon India Power & Infra Fund has been more volatile than Nippon India Banking & Financial Services 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 (0.14 for Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund vs 0.36 for Nippon India Power & Infra 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, Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund or Nippon India Power & Infra Fund?
Nippon India Power & Infra Fund has ₹7,468 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹7,270 Cr for Nippon India Banking & Financial Services 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, Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund or Nippon India Power & Infra Fund?
Nippon India Banking & Financial Services Fund launched on 2003-05-08, making it older than Nippon India Power & Infra Fund (launched 2004-03-29). 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.