Factsheets choose their own start dates. Rating sites rank on last year. We do neither — every figure here is one we computed, from records we checked and corrected first. This page is the working, including what we throw out and what we refuse to guess.
We recompute, we don't republish. When a fund house says its scheme returned 14.2%, that figure came from a start date they chose and a method they did not show. We rebuild it from the fund's own daily record — thousands of points going back to launch — and do the arithmetic ourselves. When our number and theirs disagree, we find out why before either is published.
It is the reason this site exists. Anyone can reprint a NAV.
The industry's daily NAV file — the same one every registered intermediary works from — plus each scheme's full NAV history. Never a press release, never a marketing deck, never another website.
The raw file has traps. Unit splits are never flagged, so a 100:1 split looks like a one-day 99% crash — one liquid fund appeared to have lost 57% over five years until we corrected for it. IDCW plans drop their NAV on every payout, so price-only returns understate them; we refuse to compute those rather than show a wrong number. Unclaimed-redemption accounts hold a NAV pinned at ₹1 forever and are excluded from every average.
Under one year, simple absolute return. At or beyond one year, compound annual growth rate. Reporting a six-month move as an annualised figure overstates it, which is exactly the trick this site exists to call out.
A single trailing return is an accident of today's date. So every fund is placed against every other fund in its category, and against its own history — the same three-year hold measured from hundreds of different start dates.
Where a figure isn't available, the page says so. It does not show an estimate, a placeholder, or last year's number without a date on it.
Mutual funds, AIF, SIF and PMS are regulated differently and disclose differently. Pretending our coverage is equally solid across all four would be the easy lie. It isn't, and here is exactly why.
Published here because a gap you can see is worth more than a number you can't check.
Data can be stale, mismatched or simply incorrect, and we would rather hear it from you than not at all. Write to editorial@mftimes.in with the fund and the figure — corrections are made openly.