Motilal Oswal Active Momentum Fund 1-Year Review

Why this momentum fund is trending

Reddit and social channels are actively comparing momentum mutual funds in India, and Motilal Oswal Active Momentum Fund is frequently cited for its recent performance. Most posts focus on the fund’s first full year of track record and how it ranks within the Sectoral or Thematic category. Several users are sharing portal screenshots that show the fund beating category averages across short and long trailing periods. Discussions also highlight that results within the momentum fund universe vary widely, even over the same market window. Some contributors treat the numbers as a sign of strategy fit, while others stress that the fund is still young. The commentary is largely performance-led, with less attention on portfolio composition details because those are not part of the shared snapshots. A repeated theme is how the fund’s headline returns should be read alongside risk and cost. Another recurring point is that different portals show slightly different returns because of calculation methods.

Basic snapshot from shared screenshots

Based on the circulated data, the fund is about 1 year and 6 months old. One screenshot lists the launch date as Mar 17, 2025. The benchmark mentioned across posts is the NIFTY 500 Total Return Index, also referred to as Nifty 500 TRI. NAV values shared for late August 2026 cluster around the mid-teens, with examples like ₹14.17 (as of 24 Aug 2026) and ₹14.20 (as of 21 Aug 2026). Another snapshot shows NAV as of Aug 28, 2026 at ₹14.4141 with a +0.12% 1-day change. The fund size shown in the same social share is ₹942 crore AUM. ET Money ranking is referenced as “App exclusive” in the shared table, and “18” appears in the context alongside ranking discussions. Investors are using these basic stats to frame whether the performance is coming from a small, early-stage fund or from a strategy that is scaling.

Performance since inception: strong early track record

The most repeated performance figure is the average annual return since inception, shown around 27.54% to 28.75% per year in different screenshots. One statement claims the fund has delivered average annual returns of 28.75% since inception. Another screenshot shows “Return Since Launch” at 28.93%, reinforcing the same broad range. In the same feeds, some users point to a one-year return shown as 28.18% in one source, while another shows oneYear_Ret at 23.8. Separate tables show 1-year CAGR values near 25.04% to 26.34%, and another portal view shows 1-year at 30.56%. These differences are also explained in the context, noting that figures beyond one year are annualised and computed from AMFI NAV history, so they may differ slightly from other portals. For investors, the key point from the trend is not a single precise number, but that multiple sources show a strong first-year outcome versus category averages.

Short-term returns versus category average

Shorter periods are heavily shared because they show the fund’s performance relative to its category over 1M, 3M, and 6M windows. One set of numbers shows 1 Month at 6.9% versus 1.27% category average, 3 Months at 9.0% versus 3.49%, 6 Months at 22.68% versus 0.84%, and 1 Year at 30.56% versus 5.9%. Another comparison table (also labelled Sectoral or Thematic) shows the fund ahead on all these periods, with a listed 1Y advantage of about 17.09 to 19.90 percentage points depending on the dataset. Users are reading these gaps as evidence that the momentum strategy has been in favour recently. At the same time, they note that momentum strategies can be cyclical and that these are trailing windows. The comparisons are used to justify why this fund is being shortlisted over generic thematic options.

Cohort ranking and the peer set being used

Several screenshots include a scorecard placing the fund at about 4 out of 5 stars. The peer group is consistently shown as Sectoral or Thematic, with peer counts like 247 funds or 251 funds in different snapshots. In those scorecards, the fund is reported to rank #6 of 247, #7 of 251, and #8 of 251 on 1-year return, depending on the date and source. Social posts treat these ranks as a quick way to validate that the outperformance is not marginal. Another frequently repeated line is that the fund is “ahead of the Sectoral or Thematic average” across 1M, 3M, 6M, and 1Y. The same content also shows the scorecard weightings, where 1Y performance has a 60% weight and risk has a 15% weight. While rank-based metrics are popular online, some users caution that ranks can shift quickly when the fund’s history is short. The overall takeaway from the trend is that, within the peer set used by these portals, the fund has been near the top of the table over 1 year.

Risk labels and risk-adjusted return signals

Risk is also part of the discussion because the strategy is positioned in the “Very High” risk category. One shared note says that as per SEBI’s latest guidelines to calculate risk grades, the Direct Plan falls under Very High risk. Users connect this to the idea that momentum exposures can reverse sharply in different market regimes. Alongside the risk label, the fund’s Sharpe ratio is being used as a quick risk-adjusted check. Screenshots show Sharpe around 1.08 to 1.16 for the fund, compared with category averages shown between 0.22 and 0.47 in separate views. Posters interpret this as the fund delivering stronger risk-adjusted returns in the period shown, not just higher absolute returns. The same scorecards combine performance and risk into a composite rating, which is why the Sharpe numbers get repeated. Still, commenters also note that Sharpe is period-dependent and can look very different after a drawdown.

Expense ratio is drawing attention

One of the most debated points in the shares is cost. The expense ratio shown in the screenshots is high, listed at 3.48% per year in one place and 3.38% per year in another. That difference is small, but the level itself stands out in discussions. Some users argue that high costs require the fund to keep outperforming to justify the fee drag. Others counter that active thematic and factor-like strategies can come with higher expenses, and investors should check what the portal is quoting for a specific plan and date. The shared context does not include a breakdown of where expenses come from, so the discussion stays at a headline level. Several posts pair the expense ratio with the strong trailing returns and ask whether this is “worth it” for a momentum allocation. The careful point in these conversations is that future excess returns are not guaranteed, so expense ratios are a constant headwind.

Benchmark comparison: Nifty 500 TRI references

Because the benchmark is the Nifty 500 TRI, users often frame performance relative to a broad-market reference rather than a narrow sector index. A table in the context lists “2026 part” performance at +15.34% for the fund versus -1.51% for the Nifty 500, a difference of +16.85 percentage points. Another snapshot shows a similar “2026 part” line at +15.49% for the fund versus -1.43% for the Nifty 500, with a +16.92 point gap. These partial-year comparisons are used to argue that the fund did not simply ride a broad index uptrend in that window. A “2025 part” figure around +22.66% to +22.75% is also shown, though the index comparator is not provided in the screenshots. Posters treat these partial-year lines as supporting context rather than a full-cycle verdict. Since the fund started in March 2025, longer benchmark-relative history is inherently limited. Even so, the benchmark framing is part of why the fund is trending in momentum discussions.

NAV range and what it suggests about recent moves

The NAV range shared on portals is also quoted to show how close the fund is to its recent highs. Several snapshots show a 52-week low around ₹10.68 to ₹10.69 and a 52-week high around ₹14.27 to ₹14.29. One view labels the fund near the 97th percentile of its 52-week range, indicating it is trading close to the top of that band. This detail is used in discussions about timing and whether recent returns have already captured a strong run. The latest NAV in the shared snippets varies slightly by date, such as ₹14.17, ₹14.20, and ₹14.4141. Users often interpret the cluster around ₹14 as confirmation that the strong trailing returns are not a single-day anomaly but a multi-month move. However, the same NAV range can also be read as a reminder that momentum can mean elevated recent gains and potentially sharper reversals. The social chatter treats the 52-week range as a quick risk cue, not as a valuation signal.

How it stacks up against other momentum funds

A specific comparison circulating online highlights the dispersion inside momentum funds. One line says Motilal Oswal Active Momentum Fund has delivered a “stunning” 23.9% return, while Axis Momentum Fund and Samco Active Momentum have lagged with -2.14% and 0.5%, respectively. This is often cited to show that “momentum” as a label does not guarantee similar outcomes across AMCs. It also reinforces why users are looking at category ranks and Sharpe rather than the strategy name alone. The shared context does not provide the time window for that specific 23.9% versus peers line, so investors should read it as a comparative snapshot rather than a complete record. Still, the dispersion point is central to the trend: performance differences are real even within a similar theme. Users also note that with a relatively short operating history, the ranking could change meaningfully as new months of data come in. The peer comparison is one reason the Motilal fund keeps appearing in screeners and shortlist posts.

Practical takeaways from the online discussion

The strongest consensus in the conversation is that the fund has outperformed its Sectoral or Thematic category averages across multiple trailing periods shown in screenshots. The second consensus is that the fund is high risk, explicitly labelled Very High under SEBI risk grading in the shared notes. A third recurring point is that data differs slightly across portals due to annualisation and AMFI NAV history computation, so investors should expect small variations. Many posters are using simple checks like 1-year rank, Sharpe ratio, and benchmark-relative partial-year comparisons to build a quick view. The expense ratio is the main counterweight raised in comments, with figures around 3.38% to 3.48% highlighted repeatedly. The fund’s early-life status, about 1.5 years old, is also treated as a limitation when extrapolating performance. For investors reading the trend, the clean summary is that the fund has had a strong first year on the numbers being shared, but it sits in a high-risk bucket with a high stated expense ratio. The discussion remains focused on trailing performance and rankings, not on forward-looking predictions.