Skip to content
WealthTicker

UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund vs ICICI Prudential Gold ETF

UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund (Direct) and ICICI Prudential Gold ETF 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 Gold ETF schemes — see the best gold etfs for the full ranking.

Head to head

NAVs as of 05 Oct 2026

UTI - Gold Exchange Traded FundDirectICICI Prudential Gold ETF2 of 4 funds

Growth of ₹100 (rebased over the selected window)

Common period 26 Aug 2010 – 05 Oct 2026, limited by ICICI Prudential Gold ETF. Every series is rebased to ₹100 at the start of this window. Benchmark lines are the category index WealthTicker measures against, which is not always the benchmark the scheme itself declares — the fund page’s Scheme Info names that one. Gold history starts 25 Jul 2016, so that benchmark is not plotted over this window — pick a shorter range to see it.

View as table
Growth of ₹100, sampled across the common period
DateUTI - Gold Exchange Traded FundICICI Prudential Gold ETF
26 Aug 2010₹100.00₹100.00
29 Dec 2011₹138.75₹99.64
03 May 2013₹139.82₹154.45
05 Sep 2014₹137.54₹134.63
08 Jan 2016₹129.54₹134.63
13 May 2017₹139.19₹134.63
15 Sep 2018₹148.53₹146.43
18 Jan 2020₹191.74₹188.88
23 May 2021₹229.49₹226.23
25 Sep 2022₹230.81₹229.33
28 Jan 2024₹285.88₹283.69
02 Jun 2025₹442.44₹432.81
05 Oct 2026₹665.87₹655.48
UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund, ICICI Prudential Gold ETF compared on return, risk, benchmark-relative, cost and portfolio metrics.
Metric
UTI · Direct
NAV ₹123.46
Moderately High risk
★★★★☆
ICICI Prudential
NAV ₹125.65
Moderately High risk
★★★★☆
+25.76%Best in row+25.46%
+36.93%Best in row+36.44%
+24.99%Best in row+24.87%
+16.05%—
+14.07%+12.38%
+29.57%Best in row+29.38%
+12.48%+17.32%Best in row
+10.54%+15.65%Best in row
+8.96%Best in row+7.88%
Risk
19.96%19.41%Best in row
1.521.54
2.172.21
-29.80%-22.22%
-1.42%-1.07%Best in row
1.091.06
102.8%Best in row100.1%
104.7%97.8%Best in row
—0.49%
₹3,315Cr₹26,432Cr
Ayush JainNishit Patel
13 Apr 200726 Aug 2010
1.1%1.8%
8 rows carry the same value for every fund — show
Benchmark
Gold
Exit load
None
Lock-in
—
Min SIP
—
Min lumpsum
—
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 — UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund or ICICI Prudential Gold ETF?

Over the last 3 years, UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund returned +36.93% CAGR against ICICI Prudential Gold ETF's +36.44%, computed from AMFI NAV history. Over 5 years: UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund +24.99% vs ICICI Prudential Gold ETF +24.87% CAGR. Past returns don't guarantee future performance.

Which fund is riskier — UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund or ICICI Prudential Gold ETF?

UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund has shown higher volatility (+19.96% annualized vs ICICI Prudential Gold ETF's +19.41%), measured as the annualized standard deviation of daily returns over the trailing 3 years. Worst 3-year drawdown: UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund -21.22% vs ICICI Prudential Gold ETF -22.22%.

Which fund manages more money — UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund or ICICI Prudential Gold ETF?

ICICI Prudential Gold ETF is the larger fund: UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund manages ₹3,315Cr against ICICI Prudential Gold ETF's ₹26,432Cr 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 UTI - Gold Exchange Traded Fund and ICICI Prudential Gold ETF in the same category?

Yes — both are Gold ETF 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.