COMPARE
UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund-Direct Plan Growth Option vs WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund Direct Plan Growth
UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- and WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund are both in the Balanced Hybrid Fund category, from UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. and WhiteOak Capital Asset Management Limited respectively. WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.17 percentage points.
| UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund-Direct Plan Growth Option | WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund Direct Plan Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Balanced Hybrid Fund | Balanced Hybrid Fund |
| AMC | UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. | WhiteOak Capital Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | NIFTY 50 Hybrid Composite Debt 50:50 Index | CRISIL Hybrid 50+50 - Moderate Index |
| NAV | ₹9.7701 (2026-10-28) | ₹13.529 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹159.716 Cr | ₹291.47 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.88% | 0.71% |
| Inception | 2026-08-14 | 2023-10-05 |
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
UTI Balanced Hybrid 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.
| UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund-Direct Plan Growth Option | WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund Direct Plan Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 32.0896 | 25.4202 |
| P/B Ratio | 9.9087 | - |
| Dividend Yield | 0.645% | 0.9301% |
| Active Share | - | - |
| Portfolio Turnover | - | 88% |
| YTM | - | 7.8948% |
| Duration (Macaulay) | - | 2.7 yrs |
Punji Fund Health Score
UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- and WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund carry the same Punji Quality grade.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- or WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund?
WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.17 percentage points lower than UTI Balanced Hybrid 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 UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- and WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid 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, UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- or WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund?
WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund has ₹291 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹160 Cr for UTI Balanced Hybrid 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, UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- or WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund?
WhiteOak Capital Balanced Hybrid Fund launched on 2023-10-05, making it older than UTI Balanced Hybrid Fund- (launched 2026-08-14). 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.