COMPARE
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan-Growth Option vs quant Equity Savings Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- and quant Equity Savings Fund are both in the Equity Savings category, from Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited and quant Money Managers Limited respectively. 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 1.04 percentage points.
| Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan-Growth Option | quant Equity Savings Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Equity Savings | Equity Savings |
| AMC | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | quant Money Managers Limited |
| Benchmark | Nifty Equity Savings TRI | Nifty Equity Savings TRI |
| NAV | ₹17.8922 (2026-10-28) | ₹10.8294 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹730.609 Cr | ₹59.121 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.95% | 1.99% |
| Inception | 2015-05-12 | 2025-07-07 |
Returns
Risk Metrics
This fund is less than three years old, so a three-year risk history does not exist yet.
Portfolio Analytics
Nippon India 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.
Punji Fund Health Score
quant Equity Savings Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- or quant Equity Savings Fund?
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund-'s direct-plan expense ratio is 1.04 percentage points lower than quant 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.
Why don't Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- and quant Equity Savings 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, Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- or quant Equity Savings Fund?
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- has ₹731 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹59 Cr for quant 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 fund has a longer track record, Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- or quant Equity Savings Fund?
Nippon India Equity Savings Fund- launched on 2015-05-12, making it older than quant Equity Savings Fund (launched 2025-07-07). 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.