Edelweiss Gold and Silver ETF FOF
Fund basics
Returns
No CAGR is shown for an IDCW scheme, and that is deliberate. Its NAV falls by every payout it makes, so a return computed from NAV alone understates it by exactly the amount distributed — and AMFI's daily file carries no payout history to add back. A wrong number wearing the right label is worse than an honest gap. The Growth option of this same fund is the one to compare on returns.
Regular vs Direct — same portfolio, two prices
The same fund, the same manager, the same shares. The only difference is the distributor commission inside the Regular plan's expense ratio — charged every year, on the whole balance.
| Plan | NAV | 1y | 3y | 5y |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regular (this page) | 33.5670 | — | — | — |
| Direct | 34.1250 | — | — | — |
The two NAVs are 1.6% apart today. They started life at the same ₹10 — the whole of that gap is what the commission has taken out of the Regular plan since launch.
Everything the NAV says
Computed from 971 published NAVs between 16 Sep 2022 and 26 Aug 2026 — 3.9 years of history. Nothing here is an estimate; it is arithmetic on what the fund actually printed.
How it has moved
Return over time (%)
| Fund name | 1M | 3M | 6M | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | 7Y | 10Y | Since launch |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edelweiss Gold and Silver ETF FOF Regular | 9.50 | -7.69 | -9.25 | 73.55 | 40.12 | — | — | — | 36.67 |
Anything over a year is annualised (CAGR); shorter windows are absolute. The benchmark row is the index fund named below, priced daily by AMFI like every other scheme here. The category row is the median Regular plan in Other Scheme - FoF Domestic — the middle fund, not a ranking, and a median rather than an average so that one mis-stated scheme cannot move it. As on 26 Aug 2026.
Risk measures
| Fund name | Volatility | Sharpe | Sortino | Beta | Alpha | Max fall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edelweiss Gold and Silver ETF FOF Regular | 25.50 | 1.32 | 1.86 | — | — | -34.38 |
Risk measures use a risk-free rate of 6.5% and are stated so they can be checked — a ratio quoted without its risk-free rate cannot be. Beta and alpha need an index, so they are blank for the benchmark row itself.
Risk
| Volatility | Downside volatility | Sharpe | Sortino |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25.5% | 18.1% | 1.32 | 1.86 |
Sharpe and Sortino use a risk-free rate of 6.5%, roughly the 10-year government bond. Both are stated so the figure can be checked — a ratio quoted without its risk-free rate cannot be.
The worst it has been
| Deepest fall | Time to recover | Today, from its peak |
|---|---|---|
| -34.4% | — | -26.3% |
A drawdown is the fall from a previous high to the low that followed it. It is the number that decides whether somebody stays invested — a fund can have an excellent ten-year return and still have been unbearable to hold in year four.
Every one-year period it has lived through
| Best year | Median year | Worst year | Losing years |
|---|---|---|---|
| 154.4% | 26.5% | 4.6% | 0% |
Rolling returns ask a fairer question than a single five-year figure: not "what did it do from this one start date", but "what happened across every start date". A fund whose worst year is −45% is a different proposition from one whose worst is −8%, even if the averages match.
Calendar years
What it actually holds
The real portfolio the AMC filed with AMFI. Nothing here is estimated — when a fund has no filing in our store the section simply does not appear. A fund is its holdings; the returns above are only what those holdings did.
Asset allocation
A fund's risk starts here — how much of it is even in the market — before any question of which stocks or which sectors. Cash is not idleness; it is the manager's choice not to be invested, and it shows up as a drag in a rising market and a cushion in a falling one.
Portfolio aggregates
Concentration
| Number of stocks | 2 |
|---|---|
| Top 5 stocks | 100.04% |
| Top 10 stocks | 100.04% |
| Top 20 stocks | 100.04% |
| Largest single holding | 50.46% |
| Largest sector | Unclassified · 100.04% |
| Number of sectors | 1 |
| Effective stocks | 2.0 |
| Cash & equivalents | -0.04% |
Counting positions overstates diversification. The effective-stocks figure is the honest count: a portfolio can hold seventy names and still have most of its money in twenty.
Largest holdings
Top 10 are 100.3% of the fund. A high number means a concentrated portfolio — fewer names doing more of the work, for better and for worse.
Disclosed holdings from the AMC's AMFI filing, largest first. A portfolio is filed monthly and shifts between filings — this is the most recent one loaded, not a live book.
What a Other Scheme - FoF Domestic scheme is
A SEBI-classified mutual fund scheme.
Compare this scheme with others →
Questions people ask
What is the NAV of Edelweiss Gold and Silver ETF FOF — Regular Plan — IDCW?
₹33.5670 as on 26 Aug 2026, from AMFI's daily NAV file. NAV is declared once each business day after markets close, so the figure here is the most recent one published.
What is the difference between the Direct and Regular plan of Edelweiss Gold and Silver ETF FOF?
They hold the identical portfolio, run by the same manager. A Regular plan pays a distributor commission out of the fund, inside its expense ratio — commonly 0.5% to 1.2% a year more than Direct. That difference is charged on the whole balance, every year, so it compounds: on ₹1,00,000 held ten years a gap of 1.5 percentage points is roughly ₹1.4 lakh of ending value. Direct is the same fund without the commission.
What does the IDCW option mean?
An IDCW option pays part of the fund's gains out to you, and the NAV falls by exactly what it pays. It is not extra return — it is your own money returned, taxed at your slab rate. That also means a return computed from NAV alone understates an IDCW scheme, which is why no CAGR is shown here for it.
What kind of scheme is this?
A SEBI-classified mutual fund scheme.