Every number on the SIF Intelligence Centre traces back to one of three things: a fact sourced directly from AMFI or an AMC, a calculation performed on real historical data, or an explicit statement that something isn't available. This page explains exactly which is which, and how each calculation actually works — so you never have to take a figure on faith.
Sourced directly from AMFI's daily feed or an AMC's own factsheet — NAV, AUM, fund manager name, exit load. We don't calculate these; we report them, with the date they're as-of.
A number we compute ourselves from real historical NAV data — returns, volatility, drawdown, CAGR. The formula for each is documented below.
Where we don't have reliable source data, we say so explicitly — "Insufficient history" or "Data currently unavailable" — rather than estimate or invent a figure.
1D, 1M, 3M, 6M, 1Y, and Since-Inception returns are calculated directly from the scheme's actual NAV history — the same daily NAV figures published by AMFI, stored and compared over each period. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is shown alongside the 1Y and Since-Inception figures once a scheme has enough history to make annualisation meaningful.
If a period shows "Insufficient history", it means the scheme hasn't existed long enough for that specific period to be calculated — not that the return was zero or unavailable due to an error.
Calendar Year Returns show the return for each full January–December year the scheme has existed, using year-end NAV. The scheme's launch year and the current in-progress year are both explicitly labelled "partial" (since inception / year in progress) rather than shown as if they were completed calendar years — a launch-year or year-to-date figure and a full 12-month figure aren't the same thing, and we don't blur that distinction.
Monthly Return Heatmap shows each calendar month's return, calculated from that month's own NAV compared to the prior month's — the standard fund-reporting convention. A month is only shown once a full prior month exists to compare against; the very first partial month in a scheme's history is correctly left blank rather than approximated.
Rolling 3-Month and 6-Month Returns show what an investor would have earned over the trailing 3 or 6 months, calculated as of every date in the scheme's history — not just today. This reveals how medium-term performance has moved over time, rather than a single snapshot. The baseline date for each point uses calendar-month subtraction (e.g. 16 September minus 3 months = 16 June), matching how Integrato's own single-point 3M/6M return figures are calculated elsewhere on this site — both use the identical method, so the numbers agree with each other rather than showing two different conventions on the same page. Where the exact calendar date isn't a trading day (weekends, market holidays), the nearest prior published NAV is used.
Volatility (annualised) is the standard deviation of the scheme's daily NAV returns, annualised — a measure of how much the NAV has swung day to day, not a prediction of future risk.
Maximum Drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough decline in NAV over the scheme's available history, shown with the actual dates of that peak and trough where available — so you can see exactly when it happened, not just the number.
Every scheme is classified by how long it has actually existed, using its first available NAV date:
Under 180 days of history. Too new for reliable return comparison — treat any annualised figures with real caution.
180–365 days. Under a year old, so annualised figures should still be read cautiously.
365+ days. Enough history for return comparisons to carry more weight.
These thresholds are fixed and applied identically to every scheme — they're not adjusted case by case.
Both measure return per unit of risk taken, using the excess return over a risk-free benchmark: Sharpe divides by total volatility (both up and down swings); Sortino divides only by downside deviation (bad swings only), so a fund that's volatile mostly on the upside can show a notably higher Sortino than Sharpe — that's expected, not an error.
The risk-free rate is India's 91-day Government Treasury Bill rate — the standard proxy used across Indian fund research. It is manually updated periodically from RBI's own auction results, not a live feed — every figure shown states exactly which reading and date it used.
Only shown once a scheme has 365+ days of history — the same "Established" track-record threshold used everywhere else on this site. Both ratios use the trailing 1-year daily-NAV window specifically, matched on both sides of the calculation (the return period and the volatility period are the same window) — a mismatched-period ratio would be methodologically weak, so we don't show one.
A ratio can show "Not shown" even for an established scheme, if the fund's volatility over that specific window is too low for the ratio to be meaningful — dividing by a near-zero number produces an exaggerated, misleading figure rather than an informative one, so it's suppressed instead of displayed.
One honest caveat: the volatility figure used inside this specific calculation is computed fresh, purpose-built for this ratio, over the exact matching 1-year window. It is not guaranteed to be identical to any other "volatility" figure shown elsewhere on this site if that figure uses a different window or convention — each is internally consistent within its own calculation, but the two aren't necessarily cross-comparable to the decimal.
Some figures you might expect to see are intentionally absent, because we don't have the underlying data needed to calculate them honestly:
These auto-generated observations compare a scheme's own figures (1Y return, volatility, TER) against the median across every other actively-tracked SIF using the Growth option — recalculated live from the current universe each time the page loads, not a fixed or cached benchmark. A line like "1Y return above the current SIF-universe median" is a factual comparison, not an editorial judgment — and these observations never recommend buying or avoiding a scheme.
This score is relative to peers in the same strategy, not an absolute quality rating — an 82 in one strategy category isn't directly comparable to an 82 in another. It only scores schemes with at least 180 days of history; anything newer is listed separately as "emerging" rather than force-scored. When fewer than two schemes in a category qualify, no score is shown at all — a lone scheme can't be meaningfully compared to itself.
AUM and TER are shown on each card for reference but aren't part of the score — that data isn't consistently available across every scheme yet, and including it inconsistently would bias the comparison.
AMFI's daily NAV feed contains no portfolio or holdings data — we verified this directly. Where allocation figures are shown, they were sourced individually per scheme from AMC disclosures or reputable financial data aggregators, and every figure carries a badge:
Where neither exists, the page says so plainly and links to the AMC's own official page rather than guessing.
NAV, AUM, TER, and Risk Band each carry their own "as of" date wherever shown — these update on independent schedules (NAV daily, AUM and TER typically monthly per AMC disclosure), so it's normal for them to show different dates on the same scheme.
Everything on the SIF Intelligence Centre is research and educational information, generated from available data using the methodology above. None of it is investment advice, and no ranking, score, or observation is a recommendation to buy, hold, or avoid any scheme. Past performance shown here is historical fact, not a prediction — it does not indicate or guarantee future returns. For guidance specific to your own situation, talk to a SIF Specialist directly.