COMPARE
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan- Growth Option vs UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund-Growth Option- Direct
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- and UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund- are both in the Thematic Fund category, from Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited and UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. respectively. Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund- has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund- has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.39 percentage points.
| Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan- Growth Option | UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund-Growth Option- Direct | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Thematic Fund | Thematic Fund |
| AMC | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. |
| Benchmark | S&P JAPAN 500 TRI | Nifty Transportation & Logistics TRI |
| NAV | ₹31.1282 (2026-10-28) | ₹322.3302 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹340.048 Cr | ₹4,382.821 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.37% | 0.98% |
| Inception | 2014-08-08 | 2008-04-11 |
Returns
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (8.2% vs UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund-'s 19.6%) - see the FAQ below for percentile context within each fund's own category.
Risk Metrics
UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund- has been the more volatile of the two by standard deviation.
| Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan- Growth Option | UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund-Growth Option- Direct | |
|---|---|---|
| 3Y Sharpe Ratio | 0.94 | 0.41 |
| 3Y Alpha | 8.5478% | 0.3077% |
| 3Y Std Deviation | 15.5762% | 17.9913% |
| 3Y Calmar Ratio | 1.38 | 0.58 |
Portfolio Analytics
Punji Fund Health Score
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- and UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund- carry the same Punji Quality grade.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- or UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund-?
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund-'s 3-year rolling CAGR of 8.2% is higher than UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund-'s 19.6%. Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- sits in the 13th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 74th percentile for UTI-Transportation and Logistics 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 Japan Equity Fund- or UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund-?
UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund-'s direct-plan expense ratio is 0.39 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.
Which fund carries more risk, Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- or UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund-?
By standard deviation (a measure of how much a fund's returns swing around its own average), UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund- has been more volatile than Nippon India Japan Equity 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 (0.94 for Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- vs 0.41 for UTI-Transportation and Logistics 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 Japan Equity Fund- or UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund-?
UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund- has ₹4,383 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹340 Cr for Nippon India Japan Equity 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 UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund-?
UTI-Transportation and Logistics Fund- launched on 2008-04-11, making it older than Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- (launched 2014-08-08). 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.