Invesco, WhiteOak, Quant: What if 14% is better than 15% in large-cap funds?

That question changes the picture for large-cap mutual funds.

An analysis of 30 large-cap direct plans shows that some of the funds with the strongest recent returns also took substantially more risk. At the same time, a few funds managed to deliver returns that were close to the category’s top performers while keeping volatility lower and, in some cases, producing better risk adjusted numbers.

The data, sourced from Value Research, includes three-year returns for all 30 funds analysed. Five-year returns are available for 28 funds and 10-year returns for 24 funds. The risk data includes standard deviation, Sharpe ratio, Sortino ratio, beta and alpha.

The most striking comparison is between WhiteOak Capital Large Cap Fund – Direct Plan – Growth and Quant Large Cap Fund.

Both delivered 14.41% over three years. If an investor looked only at the return column, the two funds would appear almost identical.

But their risk numbers tell a different story.

WhiteOak’s standard deviation was 13.52%, while Quant’s was 17.64%. In other words, Quant’s returns were considerably more volatile. WhiteOak also had a Sharpe ratio of 0.69, compared with 0.56 for Quant, and a Sortino ratio of 0.89 versus 0.81.

Same return, different journey

Fund	3-Year Return	Standard Deviation	Sharpe Ratio	Sortino Ratio	Alpha
WhiteOak Capital Large Cap	14.41%	13.52%	0.69	0.89	4.32%
Quant Large Cap	17.64%	14.41%	0.56	0.81	3.78%

Takeaway: Quant Large Cap delivered the higher 3-year return (17.64% vs 14.41%), but WhiteOak Capital Large Cap had lower volatility and better Sharpe and Sortino ratios, suggesting better risk-adjusted performance despite the lower return. (Source: Value Research)

This is perhaps the simplest way to understand the idea of risk-adjusted returns.

The two funds reached almost exactly the same return, but they did not take the same amount of risk to get there.

Standard deviation is a measure of how much a fund’s returns fluctuate. A higher standard deviation means a more volatile ride. The Sharpe ratio, meanwhile, looks at the excess return earned for each unit of volatility. A higher Sharpe ratio generally indicates better risk-adjusted performance.

So, on these numbers, WhiteOak’s 14.41% return looks more efficient from a risk-return perspective than Quant’s 14.41%.

That does not mean Quant is a bad fund. It simply means that the return number by itself does not tell the entire story.

Invesco: high return without an equally poor risk-adjusted picture

If the story were simply about finding funds with low volatility, it would miss an important point.

Investors take equity risk precisely because they want higher returns. The objective is not necessarily to find the fund with the lowest volatility. The more useful question is whether the additional risk was adequately rewarded.

Invesco India Large Cap is a good example.

It delivered the highest three-year return among the 30 funds analysed at 15.22%. It also delivered 12.34% over five years and 13.74% over 10 years.

Its standard deviation was 15.58%, higher than WhiteOak’s 13.52%, but its Sharpe ratio was 0.68, almost the same as WhiteOak’s 0.69. Its Sortino ratio was 0.85, while its alpha was 4.87% — the highest alpha in the risk table.

That makes Invesco an important part of the story.

It shows that high returns and good risk-adjusted performance can coexist.

Invesco generated a higher three-year return than WhiteOak — 15.22% versus 14.41% — but its volatility was also higher, at 15.58% versus 13.52%.

So the comparison isn’t about saying one fund is good and another is bad. It is about understanding the trade-off.

Invesco versus WhiteOak

Metric	Invesco	WhiteOak
3-Year Return	15.22%	14.41%
Standard Deviation	15.58%	13.52%
Sharpe Ratio	0.68	0.69
Sortino Ratio	0.85	0.89
Alpha	4.87%	4.32%

Takeaway: An investor looking only at returns would pick Invesco, while one looking at volatility would prefer WhiteOak. WhiteOak also has slightly better Sharpe and Sortino ratios, indicating better risk-adjusted performance. (Source: Value Research)

An investor looking only at returns would pick Invesco.

An investor looking only at volatility would prefer WhiteOak.

An investor looking at both return and risk-adjusted performance would see that the difference is much closer than the headline return numbers suggest.

Quant shows why chasing the return number can be misleading

Quant makes the contrast even clearer.

Its three-year return of 14.41% puts it among the stronger performers in the group. But its standard deviation of 17.64% is the highest among the 30 funds in the risk table. Its beta is also 1.12, meaning it has historically been more sensitive to market movements than the benchmark. Its Sharpe ratio is 0.56.

This is not necessarily a criticism of the fund’s strategy. A more aggressive fund can outperform when markets are favourable.

But it illustrates an important point for investors: A higher return does not automatically mean a better return.

If another fund can generate a similar return with lower volatility, the latter may have delivered a more attractive risk-return trade-off.

That is precisely what the WhiteOak-Quant comparison shows.

What about investors who prefer a steadier ride?

The other interesting group is made up of funds that have not topped the three-year return table but have relatively low volatility and reasonable risk-adjusted numbers.

Take ICICI Prudential Large Cap.

Its three-year return was 12.02%, compared with 15.22% for Invesco. Its five-year return was 11.82% and its 10-year return 13.52%.

But its standard deviation was just 13.26%, lower than Invesco’s 15.58% and Quant’s 17.64%. Its Sharpe ratio was 0.55, with a Sortino ratio of 0.69.

This is a very different proposition.

ICICI Prudential did not generate the highest recent return. But it has produced a relatively strong long term return profile while keeping volatility lower than several of the more aggressive performers.

That could matter to an investor who is uncomfortable with large swings in portfolio value.

Nippon India: a stronger long-term story

Nippon India Large Cap offers another interesting contrast because its long-term numbers are stronger than its three-year ranking might initially suggest.

It delivered 12.04% over three years, but 13.85% over five years and 14.24% over 10 years.

Its standard deviation was 13.88%, while its Sharpe ratio stood at 0.53 and Sortino at 0.66. Value Research classifies its risk as Low in the supplied table.

So Nippon illustrates another lesson: a fund that is not at the top of the three-year return table can still look attractive when the investment horizon is extended.

For a long-term investor, a fund’s five- and 10-year record can be more informative than a single recent performance window.

The other side of the table: low returns and weak risk-adjusted numbers

Risk-adjusted analysis is also useful because it shows when taking risk has not been adequately rewarded.

Consider UTI Large Cap.

Its three-year return was only 8.63%, while its five-year and 10-year returns were 7.42% and 11.52%,
respectively.

Its standard deviation was 13.53%, while its Sharpe ratio was just 0.29 and its alpha was -1.07%.

PGIM India Large Cap tells a similar story. It delivered 8.52% over three years, 7.28% over five years and 10.81% over 10 years. Its Sharpe ratio was 0.30, with alpha of -1.09%.

These numbers don’t suggest that simply taking equity-market risk guarantees a high return.

That is one of the most important lessons from looking at the entire dataset.

The biggest names don’t automatically win the risk-adjusted race

Some familiar large-cap names also sit in the middle or lower end of the current risk-adjusted table.

HDFC Large Cap, for instance, returned 10.64% over three years, 11.88% over five years and 12.55% over 10 years. Its standard deviation was 13.80% and its Sharpe ratio 0.44.

Axis Large Cap delivered 10.23% over three years, 6.27% over five years and 12.43% over 10 years, with a standard deviation of 13.44% and Sharpe ratio of 0.42.

Again, the point is not that these funds should automatically be avoided. Past performance and risk statistics are not a substitute for understanding a fund’s strategy, portfolio and suitability.

But the data does show why brand familiarity should not replace analysis.

Which funds stand out when returns and risk are looked at together?

The data can broadly be divided into a few groups.

Fund	3Y Return	5Y Return	10Y Return	Std. Dev.	Sharpe	What stands out
Invesco India Large Cap	15.22%	12.34%	13.74%	15.58%	0.68	Highest 3Y return with strong Sharpe
WhiteOak Capital Large Cap	14.41%	—	—	13.52%	0.69	Highest Sharpe; same return as Quant at lower volatility
Quant Large Cap	17.64%	—	—	14.41%	0.56	High return but higher volatility
Nippon India Large Cap	12.04%	13.85%	14.24%	13.88%	0.53	Strong 5Y/10Y record with relatively low volatility
ICICI Pru Large Cap	12.02%	11.82%	13.52%	13.26%	0.55	Lower volatility with decent long-term returns
UTI Large Cap	8.63%	7.42%	11.52%	13.53%	0.29	Low recent returns and weak Sharpe

The figures above are from the supplied Value Research return and risk tables.

Don’t read Sharpe in isolation

There is one important caveat.

The Sharpe ratio is useful because it combines return and volatility into one number, but it should not be treated as a magic score that tells investors which fund to buy.

Value Research itself notes that Sharpe is primarily a comparative measure. It should be compared across funds in the same category and over the same period. It also has limitations because it treats all volatility as risk and does not distinguish between upside and downside movements.

That is why the analysis here looks at standard deviation, Sharpe, Sortino, beta and alpha alongside actual returns, rather than using a single ratio.

Sortino is particularly useful as a second check because it focuses on downside volatility. In the supplied data, WhiteOak’s Sortino of 0.89 is higher than Quant’s 0.81, reinforcing the conclusion from their Sharpe ratios.

Alpha adds another layer. It attempts to show the excess return generated after accounting for the fund’s market risk or beta. Invesco’s 4.87% alpha and WhiteOak’s 4.32% are among the stronger figures in the group, while UTI and PGIM have negative alpha.

So what should an investor actually look at?

The analysis does not produce one universal winner because different investors may value different things.

If the priority is strong recent returns combined with good risk-adjusted numbers, Invesco stands out.

If the priority is getting a similar recent return with lower volatility, the WhiteOak-Quant comparison strongly favours WhiteOak on the supplied risk measures.

If the investor wants a stronger long-term return record with relatively moderate volatility, Nippon becomes more interesting.

And if the investor is willing to accept somewhat lower returns in exchange for a relatively less volatile ride, ICICI Prudential offers a different proposition.

That is the larger lesson.

A mutual fund’s return tells you what you earned. Standard deviation tells you how bumpy the journey was. Sharpe tells you how much excess return you got for that volatility. Sortino focuses more closely on the downside, while alpha asks whether the fund delivered more than would be expected for the market risk it took.

Looking at all of these together can produce a very different picture from a simple return ranking.

The bottom line

The highest-returning large-cap fund is not automatically the best fund for every investor.

In this 30-fund analysis, Invesco’s 15.22% three-year return is the highest, but WhiteOak’s 14.41% return comes with lower volatility and a slightly higher Sharpe ratio. Quant also delivered 14.41%, but with the highest volatility in the group. Meanwhile, Nippon and ICICI Prudential show how funds with lower three-year returns can still offer relatively strong longer-term records and more moderate volatility.

For investors, therefore, the more useful question may not be ‘which fund gave the highest return?’

It may be ‘which fund gave me enough return for the risk I had to take?’ And that is where risk-adjusted returns become much more useful than a simple performance ranking.

Disclaimer: The analysis is based on return and risk data sourced from Value Research and is intended for informational purposes only. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. Risk-adjusted measures such as Sharpe, Sortino, alpha and standard deviation should be considered alongside a fund’s investment strategy, portfolio, time horizon and an investor’s risk profile before making any investment decision.

Every financial journey has a turning point. What’s yours?

Financial Express is launching a new series highlighting real experiences with money, investments, and the taxman. Did a sudden tax rule catch you off guard? Did a piece of financial advice change your life? Your story could provide invaluable, practical lessons for thousands of fellow taxpayers. Share your experience with us. We respect your privacy: no stories will be featured without a direct conversation and your full consent. Thank you.