Skip to content
WealthTicker

ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund vs UTI - Gilt Fund

ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund (Direct) and UTI - Gilt Fund (Direct) head to head: growth of ₹100, returns across every window, risk, cost, and portfolio overlap — every figure computed from AMFI NAV history, nothing supplied by a fund house. Both are Gilt Fund schemes — see the best gilt mutual funds for the full ranking.

Head to head

NAVs as of 04 Nov 2026

ICICI Prudential Gilt FundDirectUTI - Gilt FundDirect2 of 4 funds

Growth of ₹100 (rebased over the selected window)

Common period 03 Jan 2013 – 04 Nov 2026, limited by UTI - Gilt Fund. Every series is rebased to ₹100 at the start of this window.

View as table
Growth of ₹100, sampled across the common period
DateICICI Prudential Gilt FundUTI - Gilt Fund
03 Jan 2013₹100.00₹100.00
28 Feb 2014₹101.07₹103.74
25 Apr 2015₹122.92₹127.95
19 Jun 2016₹134.22₹135.46
14 Aug 2017₹158.66₹162.83
09 Oct 2018₹161.70₹164.36
05 Dec 2019₹182.08₹189.85
29 Jan 2021₹209.57₹210.94
26 Mar 2022₹218.09₹215.79
21 May 2023₹236.86₹231.67
15 Jul 2024₹259.38₹251.57
09 Sep 2025₹284.65₹270.85
04 Nov 2026₹297.74₹286.33
ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund, UTI - Gilt Fund compared on return, risk, benchmark-relative, cost and portfolio metrics, against the Gilt Fund median.
Metric
ICICI Prudential · Direct
NAV ₹116.38
Moderate risk
★★★★☆
UTI · Direct
NAV ₹68.46
Moderate risk
★★★★☆
Category median
Gilt Fund · 25 funds
+3.61%+4.60%Best in row+3.09%
+6.76%+6.79%+6.29%
+6.45%Best in row+5.77%+5.68%
+7.36%Best in row+6.93%+6.86%
+8.22%+7.90%+7.42%
+6.49%Best in row+6.06%—
+8.78%Best in row+8.12%+7.89%
+8.53%Best in row+7.84%+7.77%
+8.68%Best in row+8.02%+8.02%
Risk
2.51%Best in row2.74%3.11%
0.100.11-0.08
-12.31%-8.10%-7.84%
0.58%0.47%Best in row0.50%
₹8,555Cr₹407.09Cr₹158.30Cr
₹1.00K₹500—
₹5.00K₹500—
Manish BanthiaPankaj Pathak—
19 Aug 199921 Jan 2002—
2.9%13.6%—
11 rows carry the same value for every fund — show
Sortino
0.15
Benchmark
—
Alpha
—
Beta
—
Upside capture
—
Downside capture
—
Exit load
None
Lock-in
None
Portfolio turnover
—
Holdings
—
Top 10 weight
—

Best marks the strongest value in a row, and only where the gap is bigger than noise — a near-tie is left unmarked rather than dressed up as a result. SIP XIRR is a ₹10,000/month instalment over 5 years of real NAV history. Nothing here is supplied by a fund house. For research only — not investment advice.

Frequently asked questions

Which fund has delivered higher returns — ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund or UTI - Gilt Fund?

Over the last 3 years, UTI - Gilt Fund returned +6.79% CAGR against ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund's +6.76%, computed from AMFI NAV history. Over 5 years: ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund +6.45% vs UTI - Gilt Fund +5.77% CAGR. Past returns don't guarantee future performance.

Which fund is cheaper — ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund or UTI - Gilt Fund?

UTI - Gilt Fund has the lower expense ratio: ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund charges 0.58% a year against UTI - Gilt Fund's 0.47%. The expense ratio is deducted from the NAV daily, so a lower one compounds in the investor's favour.

Which fund is riskier — ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund or UTI - Gilt Fund?

UTI - Gilt Fund has shown higher volatility (+2.74% annualized vs ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund's +2.51%), measured as the annualized standard deviation of daily returns over the trailing 3 years. Worst 3-year drawdown: ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund -3.73% vs UTI - Gilt Fund -3.24%.

Which fund manages more money — ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund or UTI - Gilt Fund?

ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund is the larger fund: ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund manages ₹8,555Cr against UTI - Gilt Fund's ₹407.09Cr in assets. Size cuts both ways — scale lowers costs, but a very large fund can find it harder to move in and out of positions.

Are ICICI Prudential Gilt Fund and UTI - Gilt Fund in the same category?

Yes — both are Gilt Fund schemes, so their returns, risk and cost are directly comparable against the same peer set.

Figures update daily from AMFI NAV history; ratings and ranks are WealthTicker’s own — see the methodology. This is data, not investment advice.