COMPARE
Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- Direct Plan-Growth Option vs Tata Short Term Bond Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option
Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- and Tata Short Term Bond Fund are both in the Short Duration Fund category, from Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited and Tata Asset Management Limited respectively. Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.22 percentage points.
| Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- Direct Plan-Growth Option | Tata Short Term Bond Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Short Duration Fund | Short Duration Fund |
| AMC | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | Tata Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | NIFTY Medium to Long Duration Debt Index A-III | CRISIL Short Duration Debt A-II Index |
| NAV | ₹13.5662 (2026-10-28) | ₹56.3286 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹190.259 Cr | ₹2,884.68 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.15% | 0.37% |
| Inception | 2022-02-25 | 2013-01-01 |
Returns
Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (8.3% vs Tata Short Term Bond Fund's 6.9%) - see the FAQ below for percentile context within each fund's own category.
Risk Metrics
Risk metrics aren't shown for debt funds. Their NAV starts near Rs 10 and compounds steadily, so CAGR, beta and drawdown measure the arithmetic rather than the manager.
Portfolio Analytics
Punji Fund Health Score
Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- or Tata Short Term Bond Fund?
Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5-'s 3-year rolling CAGR of 8.3% is higher than Tata Short Term Bond Fund's 6.9%. Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- sits in the 90th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 13th percentile for Tata Short Term Bond 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 Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- or Tata Short Term Bond Fund?
Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5-'s direct-plan expense ratio is 0.22 percentage points lower than Tata Short Term Bond 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 Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- and Tata Short Term Bond Fund show risk metrics like Sharpe ratio or alpha?
Risk metrics aren't shown for debt funds. Their NAV starts near Rs 10 and compounds steadily, so CAGR, beta and drawdown measure the arithmetic rather than the manager. 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 Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- or Tata Short Term Bond Fund?
Tata Short Term Bond Fund has ₹2,885 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹190 Cr for Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5-. 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 Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- or Tata Short Term Bond Fund?
Tata Short Term Bond Fund launched on 2013-01-01, making it older than Nippon India Fixed Maturity Plan-XLIII-Series 5- (launched 2022-02-25). 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.