COMPARE
Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option vs Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund - Direct Plan - Growth
Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund and Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund are both in the Conservative Hybrid Fund category, from Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited and PPFAS Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. respectively. Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.68 percentage points.
| Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option | Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund - Direct Plan - Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Conservative Hybrid Fund | Conservative Hybrid Fund |
| AMC | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | PPFAS Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. |
| Benchmark | CRISIL Hybrid 85+15 - Conservative Index | CRISIL Hybrid 85+15 - Conservative Index |
| NAV | ₹68.7638 (2026-10-28) | ₹15.7763 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹972.172 Cr | ₹3,404.72 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1% | 0.32% |
| Inception | 2003-12-10 | 2021-05-07 |
Returns
Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (8.5% vs Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund's 11.5%) - see the FAQ below for percentile context within each fund's own category.
Risk Metrics
Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund has been the more volatile of the two by standard deviation.
Portfolio Analytics
Nippon India Conservative Hybrid 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.
| Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth Option | Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund - Direct Plan - Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 20.753 | 10.0752 |
| P/B Ratio | - | - |
| Dividend Yield | 1.5002% | 4.7595% |
| Active Share | - | - |
| Portfolio Turnover | - | - |
| YTM | - | 7.7825% |
| Duration (Macaulay) | 2.09 yrs | 4.0092 yrs |
Punji Fund Health Score
Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund or Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund?
Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund's 3-year rolling CAGR of 8.5% is higher than Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund's 11.5%. Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund sits in the 29th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 100th percentile for Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid 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 Conservative Hybrid Fund or Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund?
Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.68 percentage points lower than Nippon India Conservative Hybrid 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 Conservative Hybrid Fund or Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund?
By standard deviation (a measure of how much a fund's returns swing around its own average), Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund has been more volatile than Nippon India Conservative Hybrid 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 (0.57 for Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund vs 0.51 for Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid 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 Conservative Hybrid Fund or Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund?
Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund has ₹3,405 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹972 Cr for Nippon India Conservative Hybrid 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), Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund or Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund?
Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid 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, Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund or Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund?
Nippon India Conservative Hybrid Fund launched on 2003-12-10, making it older than Parag Parikh Conservative Hybrid Fund (launched 2021-05-07). 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.