COMPARE
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan- Growth Option vs PGIM India Healthcare Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- and PGIM India Healthcare Fund are both in the Thematic Fund category, from Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited and PGIM India Asset Management Private Limite respectively. PGIM India Healthcare Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
PGIM India Healthcare Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.41 percentage points.
| Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan- Growth Option | PGIM India Healthcare Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Thematic Fund | Thematic Fund |
| AMC | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | PGIM India Asset Management Private Limite |
| Benchmark | S&P JAPAN 500 TRI | BSE Healthcare TRI |
| NAV | ₹31.1282 (2026-10-28) | ₹11.97 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹340.048 Cr | ₹135.617 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.37% | 0.96% |
| Inception | 2014-08-08 | 2024-11-19 |
Returns
Risk Metrics
This fund is less than three years old, so a three-year risk history does not exist yet.
Portfolio Analytics
Punji Fund Health Score
PGIM India Healthcare Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- or PGIM India Healthcare Fund?
PGIM India Healthcare Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.41 percentage points lower than Nippon India Japan Equity 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 Japan Equity Fund- and PGIM India Healthcare 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 Japan Equity Fund- or PGIM India Healthcare Fund?
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- has ₹340 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹136 Cr for PGIM India Healthcare 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 Japan Equity Fund- or PGIM India Healthcare Fund?
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- launched on 2014-08-08, making it older than PGIM India Healthcare Fund (launched 2024-11-19). 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.