Canara Robeco Consumption Fund vs Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund
Thematic Fund · Direct Plan – Growth · Compared on official AMFI NAV data · NAVs as of 09-Nov-2026
| Metric | Canara Robeco Consumption Fund | Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund |
|---|---|---|
| Latest NAV | ₹128.69 | ₹182.7 |
| 1-Year Return | +0.51% | -0.37% |
| 3-Year Return (CAGR) | +12.21% | +17.85% |
| 5-Year Return (CAGR) | N/A | N/A |
| Volatility (1Y, annualised) | 16.3% | 15.8% |
| Max Drawdown | −21.3% | −23.3% |
| Fund House | Canara Robeco Mutual Fund | Canara Robeco Mutual Fund |
Growth of ₹10,000
If you had invested ₹10,000 in each fund
Embed this chart on your site (free)
Copy this code into your website or blog. It stays up to date automatically.
<iframe src="https://moneydock.in/embed/fund-compare/canara-robeco-consumption-fund-vs-canara-robeco-infrastructure-fund" width="100%" height="520" style="border:1px solid #e5e7eb;border-radius:12px;max-width:760px" title="Canara Robeco Consumption Fund vs Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund by MoneyDock" loading="lazy"></iframe> <p style="font-size:12px">Powered by <a href="https://moneydock.in" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MoneyDock</a></p>
See the embed documentation for all widgets, sizing options and usage terms.
Canara Robeco Consumption Fund vs Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund: which is better?
Canara Robeco Consumption Fund and Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund are both thematic fund mutual funds (direct plan, growth option). This comparison uses each fund's official AMFI NAV history — the same daily data the fund houses publish — to compare returns, volatility and drawdowns side by side.
On 3-year returns (annualised), Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund leads with +17.85% against +12.21% — a gap of about 5.64 percentage points per year over that period.
Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund has been the steadier fund over the past year, with annualised volatility of 15.8% versus 16.3%. Looking at worst falls, Canara Robeco Consumption Fund's deepest drawdown in the stored history is −21.3% against −23.3% for Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund.
Which fund suits you depends on your horizon and appetite for swings: the higher-return fund is only the better pick if you can hold through its rougher months. Use the ₹10,000 growth chart above to see how each fund actually behaved through market cycles, and consider consulting a SEBI-registered adviser before investing. This comparison is informational, not investment advice.
Key takeaways
- Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund has delivered higher 3-year returns (+17.85% vs +12.21%).
- Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund has shown lower volatility over the trailing year.
- Canara Robeco Consumption Fund has had the shallower maximum drawdown (−21.3%).
Frequently Asked Questions
Which fund has given higher returns — Canara Robeco Consumption Fund or Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund?
Over the past 3 year period, Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund has delivered higher returns: +17.85% versus +12.21% annualised. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which fund is less risky — Canara Robeco Consumption Fund or Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund?
Based on the trailing year, Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund has shown lower day-to-day volatility (Canara Robeco Consumption Fund: 16.3%, Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund: 15.8% annualised). Volatility and drawdowns describe past behaviour, not future safety — both funds carry the market risk of their category.
Can I invest in both Canara Robeco Consumption Fund and Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund?
Yes — many investors split a SIP across two funds. If both funds are from the same category, remember they will hold overlapping stocks, so diversification benefits may be smaller than they appear. Check each scheme's portfolio before doubling up within one category.
More Thematic Fund comparisons
Returns, volatility and drawdowns are computed from official AMFI NAV history for direct-growth plans and may differ slightly from fund-house factsheets due to date conventions. Mutual fund investments are subject to market risks. This comparison is for informational purposes only — not investment advice.