ICICI Prudential Gold ETF vs Nippon India Gold BeES

ICICI Prudential Gold Exchange Traded Fund has delivered the higher 3-year CAGR (35.40% vs 35.07%). ICICI Prudential Gold Exchange Traded Fund is the cheaper of the two with an expense ratio of 0.49% against 0.81%. Nippon India ETF Gold BeES manages the larger corpus at ₹52.72k Cr. There is no single "better" ETF — the right choice depends on your holding period, risk appetite and what you already own. Use the returns, risk and portfolio overlap tables above to judge which fits your portfolio, and remember that past returns do not guarantee future performance.

Over 1 year, ICICI Prudential Gold Exchange Traded Fund returned 47.32% against 46.90% for Nippon India ETF Gold BeES; and over 3 years, ICICI Prudential Gold Exchange Traded Fund leads with a 35.40% CAGR versus 35.07%. Returns beyond one year are CAGR (annualised). Short-period returns are heavily influenced by market cycles, so compare over at least three to five years before drawing conclusions.

ICICI Prudential Gold Exchange Traded Fund has the lower expense ratio at 0.49%, compared with 0.81% for Nippon India ETF Gold BeES — a difference of 0.32% a year. The expense ratio is deducted from NAV daily, so a lower ratio directly improves your net return, though it should not be the only reason to pick an ETF.

Both ICICI Prudential Gold Exchange Traded Fund and Nippon India ETF Gold BeES carry a "High" rating on the SEBI Riskometer. Within the same riskometer band, differences still show up in maximum drawdown, volatility and market-cap mix — all of which are compared in the tables above.

Yes — both are Commodities: Gold ETFs, which means they follow similar mandates and are benchmarked against comparable indices. That makes a direct comparison of returns, expense ratio and risk meaningful.

ICICI Prudential Gold Exchange Traded Fund has a NAV of ₹128.04 and an AUM of ₹25.82k Cr, and was launched on 24 Aug 2010. Nippon India ETF Gold BeES has a NAV of ₹123.63 and an AUM of ₹52.72k Cr, launched on 8 Mar 2007. NAV on its own says nothing about how expensive or cheap a fund is — only the return on it matters.