Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dspace.dtu.ac.in:8080/jspui/handle/repository/23157
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVAISHANAVI-
dc.contributor.authorSuri, P. K.-
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-06T04:34:17Z-
dc.date.available2026-10-06T04:34:17Z-
dc.date.issued2026-09-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.dtu.ac.in:8080/jspui/handle/repository/23157-
dc.description.abstractThe Indian mutual fund industry has grown at an unprecedented pace in the last decade, with AUM levels hitting new heights and retail investor participation in the industry growing at a faster pace via the systematic investment plan route. In this expansion, one of the perennial strategic conundrums for individual investors is whether to invest in actively managed equity funds with higher fees that aim to outperform a benchmark or in passively managed index funds that track a benchmark like the NIFTY 50 at a much lower cost. This study aims to answer this question by conducting an empirical comparison between selected active and passive mutual funds in India. The research is based on real-time NAV data from the official records of the As sociation of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI) via the public mfapi.in interface. The validated and pre-processed sample is a sample of 5 passive index funds and 4 large cap equity funds, with Nippon India ETF Nifty BeES as the benchmark. The analysis includes 1,304 trading days between August 2017 and August 2022, which includes the market shock and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The metrics which are used for the evaluation of performance are a rich set of metrics – Compound Annual Growth Rate, annualised volatility, Sharpe ratio, maximum drawdown, beta, and Total Expense Ratio. Independent two-sample t-tests are used to make statistical inferences at a 5 per cent significance level. The empirical results show that, on average, active funds provided a CAGR of 11.95 per cent compared to 9.98 per cent for passive funds, and had slightly lower volatility as well as a better mean Sharpe ratio. The differences in returns, risk, and risk-adjusted returns were not statistically significant, however. The only statistically significant differences found were in Total Expense Ratio: Active funds were about 1.49 percentage points more expensive per year. During the study period, none of the active funds outperformed NIFTY 50 index. The study finds that there is no statistically significant evidence of the active management premium in the large-cap segment of the Indian equity market and the significant cost disadvantage for the passive investment option is more favourable for long-term investors.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesTD-9241;-
dc.subjectACTIVE AND PASSIVE MUTUAL FUNDSen_US
dc.subjectCOMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSISen_US
dc.subjectNIFTY 50en_US
dc.titleCOMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE MUTUAL FUNDS IN INDIAen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
Appears in Collections:MBA

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Vaishanavi dmba.pdf927.57 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Vaishanavi plag.pdf7.12 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.