A 0–10 Score. No Hidden Agenda.
Every fund on BullWiser receives an Honest Score from 0 to 10, calculated purely from public AMFI data. No fund pays us to be rated higher. No distributor influences our algorithm. The score reflects four things: how well the fund performed, how cheaply it operates, how safely it delivered returns, and how good its underlying portfolio is.
Example: A fund scoring 8.0 / 10
Returns Pillar: 2.5 / 3 · Cost Pillar: 2.5 / 3 · Risk Pillar: 1.7 / 2 · Quality Pillar: 1.3 / 2
Verdict: HIGH QUALITY — recommended for long-term equity exposure.
Four Pillars. Ten Points.
Each fund is evaluated across four independent dimensions. Each pillar has a fixed maximum, and the four pillars sum to 10. We chose these four because they capture the complete risk-return-cost picture that a long-term retail investor actually needs.
Returns — How We Measure Performance
Raw returns are misleading. A fund that returned 40% in one year looks great — but if its entire category averaged 45%, it actually underperformed. We measure returns using category-relative percentile rank.
3 pts → Top 20th percentile (beats 80%+ of category peers)
2 pts → 20th–50th percentile (above median)
1 pt → 50th–75th percentile (below median but not worst)
0 pts → Bottom 25th percentile (consistent underperformer)
We evaluate returns across three horizons — 1Y, 3Y, and 5Y — weighting longer timeframes more heavily. A fund with a great 1Y return but poor 3Y and 5Y numbers will score lower than one with consistent long-term outperformance.
Why 3 timeframes?
- 1Y return — Captures recent momentum, useful for tactical assessment
- 3Y CAGR — Captures a full market cycle (includes a bull and a correction)
- 5Y CAGR — Captures long-term compounding ability and fund manager consistency
Cost — The Silent Wealth Killer
TER (Total Expense Ratio) is deducted daily from your NAV. A 1% difference in TER over 20 years can mean losing 20–25% of your final corpus. We penalise high-TER funds aggressively because the evidence is clear: lower costs correlate strongly with better long-term investor outcomes.
3 pts → TER is >0.3% below category average (very efficient)
2 pts → TER is within ±0.3% of category average
1 pt → TER is 0.3–0.8% above category average
0 pts → TER is >0.8% above category average (expensive)
This is the pillar where Direct plans almost always beat Regular plans. A Direct plan typically has a TER 0.5–1.5% lower than its Regular equivalent — which automatically earns it 1–2 extra points in this pillar. This is not bias; it is mathematical reality.
Risk — Returns Mean Nothing Without Context
A fund that gained 20% by taking enormous risk is not better than one that gained 15% by taking moderate risk. We use two standard risk metrics used globally by institutional investors.
Risk-Free Rate ≈ 6.5% (India 10Y G-Sec yield proxy)
1 pt → Sharpe > 0.8 (good risk-adjusted return)
1 pt → Drawdown < 20% (controlled downside)
Both metrics require at least 3 years of NAV history to compute reliably. Funds with less history are marked UNDER EVALUATION and these 2 points remain unscored.
Quality — Is the Fund Itself Trustworthy?
Even a well-performing fund can be problematic if it is too small to liquidate, too new to assess, or too concentrated in a few stocks. This pillar evaluates the fund's structural soundness.
Quality scoring components
- Fund Age (0.5 pts): Funds older than 5 years score full marks. 3–5 years: partial. Under 3 years: UNDER EVALUATION.
- AUM Size (0.5 pts): Funds with AUM under ₹100 Cr in equity face liquidity risk. Funds over ₹500 Cr score full marks.
- Portfolio Concentration (1 pt): If top 5 holdings exceed 60% of the portfolio, concentration risk reduces score. Well-diversified portfolios score higher.
From Score to Verdict
Every fund receives a human-readable verdict based on its total score:
| Score Range | Verdict | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| 7.0 – 10.0 | HIGH QUALITY | Strong across all 4 pillars. Suitable for long-term SIP or lump sum for eligible investors. |
| 5.0 – 6.9 | AVERAGE | Decent fund, but one or more pillars show weakness. Review before investing. |
| 3.5 – 4.9 | BELOW AVERAGE | Underperforms peers or charges excessive fees. Better alternatives likely exist. |
| 0 – 3.4 | POOR QUALITY | Fails across multiple pillars. Existing investors should consider switching after evaluating tax implications. |
| Any score | UNDER EVALUATION | Fund is less than 3 years old. Insufficient history for reliable scoring. Watch but don't commit large amounts. |
What We Deliberately Don't Do
Our scoring is free of the following influences:
- ❌ We do not receive payments from AMCs or fund houses to rank funds higher
- ❌ We do not earn trail commissions from Regular plan sales
- ❌ We do not factor in marketing spend, brand size, or AMC popularity
- ❌ We do not manually override algorithmic scores for any fund
- ❌ We do not use "sponsored" or "featured" labels as proxies for quality
- ✅ We actively recommend Direct plans over Regular plans — which reduces distributor income from our users
- ✅ All data comes from AMFI India and MFApi.in — official, freely available public sources
Frequently Asked Questions
Important Disclaimer: BullWiser is not a SEBI-registered investment adviser. The BullWiser Score is an algorithmic, data-driven analytical tool for educational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, a buy/sell recommendation, or a guarantee of future returns. Mutual fund investments are subject to market risks. Please read all scheme-related documents carefully before investing. Past performance is not indicative of future results.