COMPARE
Nippon India Gilt Fund - Direct Plan - P F Option - Defined Maturity Date Option vs UTI - GILT FUND - Direct Plan - Growth Option
Nippon India Gilt Fund and UTI - GILT FUND are both in the Gilt Fund category, from Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited and UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. respectively. Nippon India Gilt Fund has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. UTI - GILT FUND has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
UTI - GILT FUND has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.05 percentage points.
| Nippon India Gilt Fund - Direct Plan - P F Option - Defined Maturity Date Option | UTI - GILT FUND - Direct Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Gilt Fund | Gilt Fund |
| AMC | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. |
| Benchmark | No benchmark required for this fund category | No benchmark required for this fund category |
| NAV | ₹43.9771 (2026-10-28) | ₹67.1926 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹1,392.183 Cr | ₹408.56 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.52% | 0.47% |
| Inception | 2008-08-22 | 2001-01-14 |
Returns
Nippon India Gilt Fund leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (9.1% vs UTI - GILT FUND's 8.1%) - 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
Nippon India Gilt Fund carries the higher portfolio YTM.
Punji Fund Health Score
Nippon India Gilt Fund and UTI - GILT FUND carry the same Punji Quality grade.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Nippon India Gilt Fund or UTI - GILT FUND?
Nippon India Gilt Fund's 3-year rolling CAGR of 9.1% is higher than UTI - GILT FUND's 8.1%. Nippon India Gilt Fund sits in the 95th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 73rd percentile for UTI - GILT 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 Gilt Fund or UTI - GILT FUND?
UTI - GILT FUND's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.05 percentage points lower than Nippon India Gilt 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 Gilt Fund and UTI - GILT 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 Gilt Fund or UTI - GILT FUND?
Nippon India Gilt Fund has ₹1,392 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹409 Cr for UTI - GILT 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 a higher yield to maturity (YTM), Nippon India Gilt Fund or UTI - GILT FUND?
Nippon India Gilt Fund's portfolio YTM (7.29%) is higher than UTI - GILT FUND's. YTM is the weighted-average return a debt fund's current bond holdings would earn if held to maturity, assuming no defaults and coupons reinvested at the same rate - a useful forward-looking yield estimate for debt funds the way rolling CAGR is for equity funds, though it's an estimate based on today's portfolio, not a guaranteed return, and can move as bonds are bought/sold or as interest rates change.
Which has longer duration (more interest-rate sensitivity), Nippon India Gilt Fund or UTI - GILT FUND?
Nippon India Gilt 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 Gilt Fund or UTI - GILT FUND?
UTI - GILT FUND launched on 2001-01-14, making it older than Nippon India Gilt Fund (launched 2008-08-22). 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.