COMPARE
PGIM India Money Market Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option vs UTI MMF - Direct Plan - Growth Option
PGIM India Money Market Fund and UTI MMF are both in the Money Market Fund category, from PGIM India Asset Management Private Limite and UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. respectively. UTI MMF has posted a higher 3-year rolling CAGR. PGIM India Money Market Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
PGIM India Money Market Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.00 percentage points.
| PGIM India Money Market Fund - Direct Plan - Growth Option | UTI MMF - Direct Plan - Growth Option | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Money Market Fund | Money Market Fund |
| AMC | PGIM India Asset Management Private Limite | UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. |
| Benchmark | No benchmark required for this fund category | No benchmark required for this fund category |
| NAV | ₹1483.4145 (2026-10-28) | ₹3393.6358 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹127.928 Cr | ₹16,573.797 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.17% | 0.17% |
| Inception | 2020-02-28 | 1997-04-23 |
Returns
UTI MMF leads on 3-year rolling CAGR (7.4% vs PGIM India Money Market Fund's 6.6%) - 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
Punji Fund Health Score
PGIM India Money Market Fund and UTI MMF carry the same Punji Quality grade.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a higher 3-year return, PGIM India Money Market Fund or UTI MMF?
UTI MMF's 3-year rolling CAGR of 7.4% is higher than PGIM India Money Market Fund's 6.6%. UTI MMF sits in the 87th percentile of its category on this metric, versus the 22nd percentile for PGIM India Money Market 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, PGIM India Money Market Fund or UTI MMF?
PGIM India Money Market Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.00 percentage points lower than UTI MMF'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 PGIM India Money Market Fund and UTI MMF 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, PGIM India Money Market Fund or UTI MMF?
UTI MMF has ₹16,574 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹128 Cr for PGIM India Money Market 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 longer duration (more interest-rate sensitivity), PGIM India Money Market Fund or UTI MMF?
PGIM India Money Market 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, PGIM India Money Market Fund or UTI MMF?
UTI MMF launched on 1997-04-23, making it older than PGIM India Money Market Fund (launched 2020-02-28). 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.