COMPARE
quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan vs The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage Fund - Direct Growth
quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund and The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage Fund are both in the Dynamic Asset Allocation or Balanced Advantage category, from quant Money Managers Limited and Wealth Company Asset Management Holdings Private Limited respectively. The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.26 percentage points.
| quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan | The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage Fund - Direct Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Dynamic Asset Allocation or Balanced Advantage | Dynamic Asset Allocation or Balanced Advantage |
| AMC | quant Money Managers Limited | Wealth Company Asset Management Holdings Private Limited |
| Benchmark | NIFTY 50 Hybrid Composite Debt 50:50 Index | CRISIL Hybrid 50+50 - Moderate Index |
| NAV | ₹16.3281 (2026-10-28) | ₹9.5061 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹785.655 Cr | ₹37.433 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.59% | 1.33% |
| Inception | 2023-03-23 | 2026-01-27 |
Returns
This fund is less than a year old, so there is not yet enough history to calculate rolling returns.
Risk Metrics
This fund is less than three years old, so a three-year risk history does not exist yet.
Portfolio Analytics
quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund carries the higher portfolio P/E ratio (a rougher proxy for how richly the underlying holdings are valued) - see the table below for the full comparison.
Punji Fund Health Score
The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage Fund has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund or The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage Fund?
The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.26 percentage points lower than quant Dynamic Asset Allocation 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 quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund and The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage 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, quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund or The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage Fund?
quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund has ₹786 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹37 Cr for The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage 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, quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund or The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage Fund?
quant Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund launched on 2023-03-23, making it older than The Wealth Company Balanced Advantage Fund (launched 2026-01-27). 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.