COMPARE
Nippon India Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth vs SBI Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) - Series 60 (1878 Days) - Direct Plan - Growth
Nippon India Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II and SBI Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) - Series 60 (1878 Days) are both in the Income category, from Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited and SBI Funds Management Limited respectively. Nippon India Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Nippon India Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.00 percentage points.
| Nippon India Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II - Direct Plan Growth Plan - Growth | SBI Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) - Series 60 (1878 Days) - Direct Plan - Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Income | Income |
| AMC | Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited | SBI Funds Management Limited |
| Benchmark | CRISIL Liquid Debt Index | CRISIL Medium to Long Duration Debt A-III Index |
| NAV | ₹39.4151 (2026-10-28) | ₹13.3796 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹7.242 Cr | ₹271.013 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.13% | 0.13% |
| Inception | 2007-05-04 | 2022-02-09 |
Returns
Rolling returns are not available for this fund yet.
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 Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Nippon India Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II or SBI Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) - Series 60 (1878 Days)?
Nippon India Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.00 percentage points lower than SBI Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) - Series 60 (1878 Days)'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 Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II and SBI Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) - Series 60 (1878 Days) 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 Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II or SBI Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) - Series 60 (1878 Days)?
SBI Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) - Series 60 (1878 Days) has ₹271 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹7 Cr for Nippon India Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II. 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 Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II or SBI Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) - Series 60 (1878 Days)?
Nippon India Quarterly Interval Fund - Series II launched on 2007-05-04, making it older than SBI Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) - Series 60 (1878 Days) (launched 2022-02-09). 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.