Direct vs Regular Calculator
The same fund, the same manager, two expense ratios — see what the distributor's cut compounds into over your horizon.
Typical active-equity figures until you pick a scheme. Pick one above and both fill with AMFI's disclosed TER for its two plans.
- Invested
- Direct plan
- Regular plan
Same portfolio, same manager, same stocks — the only difference between a Direct and a Regular plan is the distributor's trail commission, which is not billed to you but is built into the Regular plan's higher expense ratio. So both sides here compound at the assumed 12% minus their own TER: +11.20% against +10.30%. Over 20 years a spread of +0.90% costs ₹11.34L — +11.6% of the corpus — because the commission is charged on the whole balance, so it grows as the balance does.
The assumed return is the return before either fee. A published NAV is already net of TER, so a fund's own historical CAGR is the wrong number to type here — it would charge the fee twice. Tax is not modelled: it applies to both plans and very nearly cancels, so it would move both bars and not the gap between them, which is the answer. Exit loads, a return path that isn't flat, and TERs that slide with AUM are all left out too.
Switching a Regular holding to Direct is a redemption and a fresh purchase in the eyes of the taxman — it can trigger capital gains and an exit load on units bought recently. See Direct vs Regular plans for how the switch actually works.
Embed this calculator on your site
Paste this where you want it. Keep the credit line under the frame — that is the part that links back.
Independent · No commissions · No fund-house data — how the numbers are computed
How it works
A Direct plan and a Regular plan of the same scheme hold the same stocks, run to the same mandate, and are managed by the same person on the same day. The only difference is the expense ratio: the Regular plan's includes a trail commission paid to whoever sold you the fund, and the Direct plan's does not. Nothing about that commission appears on your statement as a charge — it is deducted from the fund's assets before the NAV is struck, which is why the cost is invisible and why it needs a calculator to see at all.
This page prices that gap. Pick a scheme and both expense ratios fill with AMFI's disclosed figures for its Direct and Regular plans — the actual filed numbers for that fund, not a rule of thumb about typical distributor spreads. Each side then compounds at your assumed return minus its own TER, and the difference between the two end values is what the commission cost you. Leave the scheme blank and the fields carry mid-range active-equity defaults you can type over.
The result is larger than most people expect, and the reason is that the fee is charged on the whole balance every year rather than on what you put in. A one-percentage-point spread does not cost one percent of your corpus — over twenty years it is closer to fifteen, because the commission compounds exactly as your money does, in the opposite direction. The gap widens with the horizon, which is why the cost matters most for the goals that are furthest away.
Direct = Σ contributions × (1 + r − TER_direct)^t; Regular = Σ contributions × (1 + r − TER_regular)^t; cost = Direct − Regularr is the assumed return before any fee, TER each plan's own expense ratio, t the years each contribution stays invested. Both plans share r because they share a portfolio — the fee is the only variable that differs.
Frequently asked questions
Where do the two expense ratios come from?
From AMFI, which requires every AMC to disclose the total expense ratio for each plan of each scheme and publishes the file. WealthTicker ingests it, so picking a scheme fills both fields with that fund's filed Direct and Regular figures rather than an assumed spread. Where AMFI discloses only one of the two plans, the page says so and leaves the other at its default for you to overwrite from your account statement.
What return should I type in the assumed-return field?
A forward assumption for the asset class, before any fee. Do not paste the fund's own historical CAGR: a published NAV is already net of the expense ratio the fund charged, so using it here charges the fee a second time and overstates the gap. If you want a starting point, long-run Indian equity indices have returned roughly 11-13% a year before costs, and the honest reading of any answer here is that it depends on that assumption.
Why is tax not included?
Because it applies to both plans and very nearly cancels out. Capital gains are charged on the gain, and both sides are the same fund with the same holding period, so netting tax off would shrink both end values without meaningfully changing the gap between them — and the gap is the entire question this page answers. The one place tax genuinely matters is the switch itself, which is a redemption and does trigger a gains event.
Should I switch my Regular holdings to Direct?
That is a decision this page cannot make for you, because switching is not free even though the ongoing cost is lower. Moving from Regular to Direct is treated as a redemption and a fresh purchase, so it can realise capital gains and, on units bought within the exit-load window, incur a load. The usual approach is to stop fresh contributions into the Regular plan and start them in Direct, then move older units once they are past the load period, rather than switching everything at once.
Is a Direct plan riskier or lower quality than a Regular one?
No. They are the same scheme with the same portfolio, the same fund manager and the same investment mandate, filed under one SEBI registration; the plan is only a fee class. A Direct plan's NAV is higher than its Regular twin's for no reason other than the fee it has not been charged over the years. What you give up is the distributor's advice and paperwork, which is what the commission pays for.
Go further
How the two plans differ, and how a switch actually works.
Everything inside the expense ratio, plus the costs outside it.
The one-line definition of the number this page compares.
Direct-plan funds that are low-cost and still compounding.
The other side of the cost question: a fee-free government scheme.