COMPARE
UTI-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct vs WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund Direct Plan Growth
UTI-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct and WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund are both in the Dividend Yield Fund category, from UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. and WhiteOak Capital Asset Management Limited respectively. UTI-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
UTI-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 7.03 percentage points.
| UTI-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct | WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund Direct Plan Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Dividend Yield Fund | Dividend Yield Fund |
| AMC | UTI Asset Mgmt. Co. Ltd. | WhiteOak Capital Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | Nifty 500 TRI | BSE 500 TRI |
| NAV | ₹182.7713 (2026-10-30) | ₹9.842 (2026-10-30) |
| AUM | ₹3,524.869 Cr | ₹499.02 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 1.54% | 8.57% |
| Inception | 2005-04-11 | 2026-08-10 |
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
WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield 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-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct | WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund Direct Plan Growth | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 12.9845 | 16.6095 |
| P/B Ratio | 3.2392 | 4.2395 |
| Dividend Yield | 2.1066% | 1.9727% |
| Active Share | - | 82.27% |
| Portfolio Turnover | 22% | - |
| YTM | - | 5.3557% |
| Duration (Macaulay) | - | - |
Punji Fund Health Score
UTI-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct and WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund carry the same Punji Quality grade.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, UTI-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct or WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund?
UTI-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct's direct-plan expense ratio is 7.03 percentage points lower than WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield 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-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct and WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield 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-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct or WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund?
UTI-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct has ₹3,525 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹499 Cr for WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield 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-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct or WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund?
UTI-Dividend Yield Fund.-Growth-Direct launched on 2005-04-11, making it older than WhiteOak Capital Dividend Yield Fund (launched 2026-08-10). 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 2026-11-01. Source: AMFI disclosures via Punji. Not investment advice.