SIF Returns Show 43-Percentage-Point Gap Between Best and Worst Strategies

Key Takeaways

• The gap between the highest- and lowest-returning SIF strategies reached 43.03 percentage points on a since-inception basis.
• Quant's qSIF AAA delivered a 31.09% return, while ITI's Diviniti Equity recorded an 11.94% loss.
• Differences in inception dates mean the returns should not be treated as directly comparable annualised performance figures.

Performance within India's relatively new Specialised Investment Fund segment has diverged considerably, with more than 43 percentage points separating the best- and worst-performing strategies since inception.

According to the September 2026 SIFPrime performance report cited by Moneycontrol, qSIF AAA, Quant's Active Asset Allocator strategy, had generated a 31.09% since-inception return as of 30 September.

Quant's qSIF Hybrid, classified under Hybrid Long Short, followed with a return of 29.83%.

At the opposite end, ITI's Diviniti Equity, an Equity Long Short strategy, was down 11.94% since inception. Franklin Templeton's Sapphire Equity had declined 3.72%.

The difference between the top and bottom return figures stood at 43.03 percentage points.

Category performance also varies

Differences were visible not only between individual funds but across SIF strategy categories.

Hybrid Long Short strategies had generated an average return of 6.15% since inception, while the Equity Ex-Top 100 category averaged 5.35%.

The Equity Long Short category's corresponding average was considerably lower at 0.69%, according to the report.

SIFs occupy a space between traditional mutual funds and more sophisticated portfolio structures. They were introduced under a regulatory framework allowing asset managers greater flexibility in the strategies they employ, subject to specified eligibility and investment requirements.

The performance divergence therefore partly reflects differences in strategy rather than a uniform SIF market.

Return periods are not identical

A key limitation in the data is that SIF strategies did not all begin operations on the same date.

Consequently, their since-inception figures cover different holding periods. The rankings should therefore not be interpreted as a like-for-like comparison of annualised returns.

Performance over a relatively short period can also be influenced heavily by prevailing market conditions and the exposures taken by each strategy.

The latest data nevertheless illustrates the wide range of outcomes already emerging within the SIF universe as the product category expands.

Past performance does not indicate or guarantee future returns.