COMPARE
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan- Growth Option vs WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund Direct Plan Growth
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- and WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund are both in the Thematic Fund category, from Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited and WhiteOak Capital Asset Management Limited respectively. WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.33 percentage points.
| Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan- Growth Option | WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund Direct Plan Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Thematic Fund | Thematic Fund |
| AMC | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | WhiteOak Capital Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | S&P JAPAN 500 TRI | BSE Quality Index TRI |
| NAV | ₹31.1282 (2026-10-28) | ₹9.875 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹340.048 Cr | ₹535.13 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.37% | 1.04% |
| Inception | 2014-08-08 | 2025-01-08 |
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 Japan Equity Fund- Direct Plan- Growth Plan- Growth Option | WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund Direct Plan Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | - | 34.7727 |
| P/B Ratio | - | - |
| Dividend Yield | - | 0.8584% |
| Active Share | - | 88.66% |
| Portfolio Turnover | 55.00000000000001% | 164% |
| YTM | - | 5.2521% |
| Duration (Macaulay) | - | - |
Punji Fund Health Score
WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity 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 WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund?
WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.33 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 WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity 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 WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund?
WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund has ₹535 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 WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund?
Nippon India Japan Equity Fund- launched on 2014-08-08, making it older than WhiteOak Capital Quality Equity Fund (launched 2025-01-08). 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.