Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund vs Nippon India Low Duration Fund
Low Duration Fund · Direct Plan – Growth · Compared on official AMFI NAV data · NAVs as of 13-Jul-2026
| Metric | Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund | Nippon India Low Duration Fund |
|---|---|---|
| Latest NAV | ₹2,628.41 | ₹4,245.55 |
| 1-Year Return | +6.78% | +6.83% |
| 3-Year Return (CAGR) | +7.74% | +7.75% |
| 5-Year Return (CAGR) | N/A | N/A |
| Volatility (1Y, annualised) | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| Max Drawdown | −0.2% | −0.2% |
| Fund House | Mirae Asset Mutual Fund | Nippon India 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/mirae-asset-low-duration-fund-vs-nippon-india-low-duration-fund" width="100%" height="520" style="border:1px solid #e5e7eb;border-radius:12px;max-width:760px" title="Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund vs Nippon India Low Duration 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.
Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund vs Nippon India Low Duration Fund: which is better?
Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund and Nippon India Low Duration Fund are both low duration 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), Nippon India Low Duration Fund leads with +7.75% against +7.74% — a gap of about 0.01 percentage points per year over that period.
Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund has been the steadier fund over the past year, with annualised volatility of 0.6% versus 0.6%. Looking at worst falls, Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund's deepest drawdown in the stored history is −0.2% against −0.2% for Nippon India Low Duration 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
- Nippon India Low Duration Fund has delivered higher 3-year returns (+7.75% vs +7.74%).
- Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund has shown lower volatility over the trailing year.
- Nippon India Low Duration Fund has had the shallower maximum drawdown (−0.2%).
Frequently Asked Questions
Which fund has given higher returns — Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund or Nippon India Low Duration Fund?
Over the past 3 year period, Nippon India Low Duration Fund has delivered higher returns: +7.75% versus +7.74% annualised. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which fund is less risky — Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund or Nippon India Low Duration Fund?
Based on the trailing year, Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund has shown lower day-to-day volatility (Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund: 0.6%, Nippon India Low Duration Fund: 0.6% annualised). Volatility and drawdowns describe past behaviour, not future safety — both funds carry the market risk of their category.
Can I invest in both Mirae Asset Low Duration Fund and Nippon India Low Duration 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 Low Duration 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.