Edelweiss Government Securities Fund vs quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option
Gilt Fund · Direct Plan – Growth · Compared on official AMFI NAV data · NAVs as of 13-Jul-2026
| Metric | Edelweiss Government Securities Fund | quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option |
|---|---|---|
| Latest NAV | ₹26.97 | ₹12.58 |
| 1-Year Return | +3.29% | +3.80% |
| 3-Year Return (CAGR) | +6.77% | +6.48% |
| 5-Year Return (CAGR) | N/A | N/A |
| Volatility (1Y, annualised) | 3.5% | 2.5% |
| Max Drawdown | −3.3% | −2.2% |
| Fund House | Edelweiss Mutual Fund | quant 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/edelweiss-government-securities-fund-vs-quant-gilt-fund-growth-option" width="100%" height="520" style="border:1px solid #e5e7eb;border-radius:12px;max-width:760px" title="Edelweiss Government Securities Fund vs quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option 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.
Edelweiss Government Securities Fund vs quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option: which is better?
Edelweiss Government Securities Fund and quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option are both gilt 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), Edelweiss Government Securities Fund leads with +6.77% against +6.48% — a gap of about 0.29 percentage points per year over that period.
quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option has been the steadier fund over the past year, with annualised volatility of 2.5% versus 3.5%. Looking at worst falls, Edelweiss Government Securities Fund's deepest drawdown in the stored history is −3.3% against −2.2% for quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option.
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
- Edelweiss Government Securities Fund has delivered higher 3-year returns (+6.77% vs +6.48%).
- quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option has shown lower volatility over the trailing year.
- quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option has had the shallower maximum drawdown (−2.2%).
Frequently Asked Questions
Which fund has given higher returns — Edelweiss Government Securities Fund or quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option?
Over the past 3 year period, Edelweiss Government Securities Fund has delivered higher returns: +6.77% versus +6.48% annualised. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which fund is less risky — Edelweiss Government Securities Fund or quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option?
Based on the trailing year, quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option has shown lower day-to-day volatility (Edelweiss Government Securities Fund: 3.5%, quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option: 2.5% annualised). Volatility and drawdowns describe past behaviour, not future safety — both funds carry the market risk of their category.
Can I invest in both Edelweiss Government Securities Fund and quant Gilt Fund - Growth Option?
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 Gilt 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.