Balanced Advantage Fund · head to head · AMFI NAVs

ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund vs Nippon India Balanced Advantage Fund: SIP returns compared

Same ₹10,000 monthly SIP, same dates, Direct plans: over the last 5 years ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund is worth ₹7.49 L (XIRR 9.1%) and Nippon India Balanced Advantage Fund ₹7.39 L (XIRR 8.5%) — ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund ahead by ₹10,168. Across every 5-year SIP since Jan 2013, ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund finished ahead in 84 of 106 and Nippon India Balanced Advantage Fund in 22.

Same SIP in both funds · real NAVsLive

Historical simulation on actual NAVs — not a forecast and not investment advice. Disclaimer

₹10,000
6%

ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund: invested — over — instalments; valued at NAV of —:

Value today
—
XIRR —
Post-tax
—
If fully redeemed today
Real XIRR
—
After assumed inflation

YearInvestedICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund valueXIRR to date

₹10,000 a month in each: what it became

Each row is a monthly SIP ending today (1 Oct 2026), Direct plans. Post-tax assumes everything is redeemed today with no other capital gains this year.

SIP periodInvestedICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage FundXIRRNippon India Balanced Advantage FundXIRRPost-tax (both)
1 year₹1,20,000₹1.19 L-2.1%₹1.19 L-1.8%₹1.19 L / ₹1.19 L
3 years₹3,60,000₹3.90 L5.6%₹3.84 L4.5%₹3.90 L / ₹3.84 L
5 years₹6,00,000₹7.49 L9.1%₹7.39 L8.5%₹7.46 L / ₹7.37 L
10 years₹12,00,000₹21.07 L11.0%₹20.51 L10.5%₹20.11 L / ₹19.63 L

Every 5-year SIP, head to head

We started the same SIP in both funds in every month both have NAVs for — 106 SIPs, the first starting Jan 2013. ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund finished ahead in 79% of them; the median gap was 0.4 percentage points a year in ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund's favour.

Downside on the same dates: ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund's worst 5-year SIP returned -0.3% a year (started Apr 2015) and 1 of 106 lost money; Nippon India Balanced Advantage Fund's worst returned 0.9% (started Apr 2015) and 0 lost money.

0%5%10%15%Jan 2013Oct 2021
ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage FundNippon India Balanced Advantage Fund

XIRR of every 5-year monthly SIP by the month it started. Gap = ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund minus Nippon India Balanced Advantage Fund, percentage points a year.

WindowSIPs comparedAhead (ICICI / Nippon)Median gapWorst gapBest gap
3-year SIPs13064% / 36%+0.4 pp-3.2 ppstarted Feb 2015+5.8 ppstarted Mar 2013
5-year SIPs10679% / 21%+0.4 pp-1.8 ppstarted Feb 2013+1.4 ppstarted Nov 2014

Against an index fund, and the cost of the Regular plan

  • ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund: the Regular plan of the same 10-year SIP ended ₹77,124 below Direct.
  • Nippon India Balanced Advantage Fund: the Regular plan of the same 10-year SIP ended ₹1,42,475 below Direct.

Questions

Which has given better SIP returns, ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund or Nippon India Balanced Advantage Fund?

Over the last 5 years a ₹10,000 monthly SIP (Direct plans) is worth ₹7.49 L in ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund (XIRR 9.1%) and ₹7.39 L in Nippon India Balanced Advantage Fund (XIRR 8.5%). Past returns don't tell you which will do better next.

Has ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund beaten Nippon India Balanced Advantage Fund consistently?

In 79% of 106 rolling 5-year SIPs started on the same dates (from Jan 2013), ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund ended ahead of Nippon India Balanced Advantage Fund (Direct plans). The median difference was +0.4 percentage points a year.

Where does this data come from?

Official daily NAVs published by AMFI. SIP instalments fall on the first business day of each month; both funds are compared on identical dates. Updated monthly.

Comparison on official AMFI NAVs, SIP on the first business day of each month, identical dates for both funds. It shows what happened, not which fund to buy — past performance does not indicate future returns. sipcalculatorhub.com is not a SEBI-registered investment adviser. Methodology.

More comparisons