Comparing two funds side by side: what to read first

The problem

A head-to-head page lines two funds up across about 30 rows: returns over six windows, rolling averages, risk, benchmark capture, cost, structure and portfolio. Every row marks a "Best" where the gap is bigger than noise. Read top to bottom, it is easy to count the "Best" marks and call a winner. That count weighs a 1-year return the same as a 10-year one.

This post reads two real comparisons in a deliberate order. All figures are as of the close on Friday 9 October 2026.

The order

1. Inception and sub-category. Who has more history, and are they peers? The Category median column appears only when both funds share a sub-category.
2. The longest window both funds have. Not the 1-year row.
3. Consistency. The 3Y and 5Y rolling averages, checked against how much history sits behind each.
4. Risk. Max drawdown, volatility, then upside and downside capture in the "Versus benchmark" group.
5. Cost and structure. Expense ratio, fund size, exit load, minimum SIP, manager.
6. Portfolio overlap. Whether owning both buys you anything.

Pair one: the short rows mislead

Taurus Large Cap vs Invesco India Large Cap. Both are large-cap funds with Direct-plan history from January 2013, benchmarked to the Nifty 100 TRI. Step one passes.

Read from the top, Taurus Large Cap wins: a positive year when the median large cap lost 5.98%, a slightly better 3-year return, and a better 5-year SIP XIRR. Read in our order, the picture turns. Over ten years Invesco India Large Cap compounded at 13.17% against 10.05%. Its average 3-year rolling return across 130 monthly windows is 15.41% against 11.35%, so the long-run gap is not one lucky start date. The rolling vs trailing returns guide explains why that row carries more weight than any single window.

Then the cost row. Taurus charges 2.51% a year on its Direct plan, the highest in this comparison by a distance, on a fund of ₹58 crore. A 1.60-point expense ratio gap compounds: ₹1 lakh growing at 11.09% a year for ten years ends at ₹2.86 lakh, and at 9.49% a year at ₹2.48 lakh. The impact of 1% calculator runs the same arithmetic on your own numbers.

Drawdowns are close, both about 35–37%, so risk does not separate them. Taurus also has a 1% exit load inside 365 days; Invesco has none. The two share 10 stocks, about 24% of each equity book by our count.

Pair two: the young fund's numbers need trimming

Motilal Oswal Flexi Cap vs Bank of India Flexi Cap. Both are flexi-cap funds benchmarked to the Nifty 500 TRI. Step one raises a flag: Motilal Oswal Flexi Cap began in April 2014, Bank of India Flexi Cap on 1 July 2020, three months after the Covid low.

Three rows here compare unequal histories. Bank of India's 25.34% since inception starts near a market bottom. Its rolling average covers 40 windows from July 2020; Motilal Oswal's covers 114 going back to 2014. And its −23.73% drawdown never met March 2020, which is where most of Motilal Oswal's −37.10% comes from.

So we trimmed them to common ground, using the same NAV histories. Over the 40 three-year windows starting July 2020 or later, Motilal Oswal averaged 19.63% and Bank of India 24.39%, with worst windows of 13.76% and 15.31%. Since July 2020, Motilal Oswal's deepest fall was −21.55% and Bank of India's −23.73%, both from December 2024 peaks. On equal footing Bank of India still leads on return, but the drawdown advantage disappears and slightly reverses.

The capture ratios agree: both captured 96.8% of the benchmark's falls, while Bank of India took 128.5% of its rises against 125.4%. Cost favours Bank of India at 0.87% against 1.18%. The minimum SIP is ₹1,000 against ₹6,000. The two books share only five stocks, about 8% by weight: Motilal Oswal holds 31 stocks, Bank of India 64, so owning both would be two different bets rather than one bet twice.

The rule of thumb

Trust a row only if both funds were alive for all of it. Read long windows before short ones, rolling before trailing, and cost last but never skip it, because it is the only row that is certain to repeat. A "Best" mark on the 1-year row is the least informative mark on the page.

Pitfalls

• Counting stars. Both pairs here include a 2-star fund, and Taurus Large Cap still wins several rows. The star rating already blends returns, risk and cost within the peer group; read what the ratings show before leaning on it.
• Overlap as a verdict. Low overlap means different portfolios, not better ones. Fund overlap: are you diversifying or doubling down? covers when it matters.
• Comparing across categories. A flexi cap against a large cap is a question about asset allocation, not fund quality, and the page drops the median column to say so.

What the numbers do not tell you

Every row is history, computed from AMFI NAVs; the methodology page has the formulas, and the overlap figures here are our own count from the latest disclosed portfolios. The trimmed figures in pair two are not on the compare page; they use the same data over a shorter window. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any of these funds.