Why Most PMS Rankings Fail You
Search for "best PMS in India" and you'll find lists sorted by recent returns.
That's the equivalent of ranking cricket batsmen by their most recent innings. One brilliant score doesn't tell you who performs across conditions - and one bad patch doesn't erase years of consistency.
The problem with return-sorted rankings is structural, not cosmetic. They reward strategies that happened to be in the right style at the right time. A momentum-heavy small-cap PMS will top the charts in a small-cap rally year. A value-oriented large-cap PMS will look ordinary in the same year - and then outperform when the cycle turns.
Investors who chase these lists are systematically buying high. They enter after the outperformance, not before it.
We built the AND Fintech Score to solve this.
What the AND Fintech Score Actually Measures
The AND Fintech Score combines two things that, together, tell you more than returns ever could:
Peer outperformance. Not raw returns - alpha relative to other strategies in the same category. A Mid Cap PMS that returned 22% in a year where the median Mid Cap PMS returned 24% , it didn't add value, regardless of how impressive 22% sounds in isolation. We measure whether a strategy outperformed its own peers, because that's the only comparison that separates skill from market conditions.
Risk control. Two strategies can deliver identical returns over three years. One did it smoothly. The other swung between +40% quarters and -25% drawdowns. The second strategy tested your nerves at every turn - and many investors in that strategy sold at the worst moment. Risk control isn't academic. It determines whether you actually capture the returns the strategy generates.
The AND Fintech Score weighs both dimensions equally. A strategy needs to outperform its peers and control risk to rank well. High returns with reckless risk don't score highly. Low volatility with mediocre returns doesn't either.
The 36-Month Window - And Why It Matters
We evaluate every strategy over a trailing 36-month window.
Three years is long enough to span at least one meaningful market correction. Any strategy can look good in a 12-month bull run. Thirty-six months forces a strategy to prove it works across rising markets, sideways markets, and the inevitable pullback.
We don't use the commonly reported 3-year return figure directly. Instead, we compound the last 36 individual monthly returns - month by month, independently verified. This catches discrepancies that occasionally appear in reported numbers and ensures every strategy is evaluated on an identical, auditable basis.
A strategy needs all 36 monthly returns available to be ranked. No gaps, no estimates. If the data isn't complete, the strategy doesn't appear in the ranking. This is deliberate - we'd rather show fewer strategies accurately than more strategies with assumptions baked in.
Peer Alpha - The Core of Fair Comparison
Here's the fundamental problem with comparing PMS strategies by raw returns: different categories face entirely different market conditions in any given period.
Comparing a Small Cap PMS to a Large Cap PMS on three-year returns is like comparing a Test batsman's average to a T20 specialist's strike rate. They're playing different formats.
The AND Fintech Score solves this with peer alpha - each strategy's return measured against the median return of its own category.
Why not benchmark alpha? Reason being the gap between a strategy and its stated benchmark index. Because PMS benchmarks across the industry aren't standardised. One Mid Cap PMS benchmarks against Nifty Midcap 150 TRI. Another uses BSE 500 TRI. A third picks MSEI SX 40 TRI. These benchmarks behave differently, correlate differently with portfolio holdings, and make cross-strategy comparison unreliable.
Peer alpha removes this problem entirely. When a Small Cap PMS is compared against other Small Cap PMS strategies, the benchmark debate becomes irrelevant. The question becomes: did this strategy outperform its own peer group? That's a question every investor actually cares about.
How Categories Work
Not all categories are large enough to form a standalone ranking.
The established equity categories - Large Cap, Mid Cap, Small Cap, Flexi Cap, Multi Cap - each have enough eligible strategies to produce a meaningful ranking with proper statistical spread. These categories each get their own ranking table.
Some categories need combining. Micro Cap PMS, with roughly seven eligible strategies, doesn't form a credible standalone ranking. These strategies join the Small Cap pool to create a combined "Small & Micro Cap" table. Each Micro Cap strategy keeps its category label - you'll know exactly what it is - but it's ranked against a larger, statistically meaningful peer group.
Similarly, Flexi Cap and Multi Cap strategies are merged under one "Flexi & Multi Cap" ranking. Their investment mandates are similar enough that combining them produces fairer peer comparison than separating them into pools of five or six.
Thematic and Global strategies, with approximately seven and four eligible strategies respectively, don't form a ranked table of their own. The universe is simply too small for a ranking to carry weight. These strategies do, however, appear in the All Equity ranking - a single table covering every equity PMS strategy across all categories, each carrying its category label.
Multi Asset Gets Its Own Lane
Multi Asset PMS strategies - which allocate across equity, debt, gold, and other asset classes - are ranked using the same scoring methodology as equity strategies. But they compete only against other Multi Asset strategies, never against pure equity PMS.
This is a deliberate design choice. A Multi Asset strategy that returned 14% in a year where equity PMS averaged 22% might look poor by comparison - but if other Multi Asset strategies returned 10-12%, that 14% represents genuine outperformance within its asset class mandate.
The ₹50 Crore AUM Floor
A strategy needs at least ₹50 Crore in Assets Under Management to appear in the AND Fintech ranking.
This isn't arbitrary. A "Best PMS in India" ranking should carry the weight of real, managed capital. A strategy running ₹8 Crore might show spectacular returns - but those returns were generated in conditions that fundamentally change at scale. Small positions in illiquid stocks, minimal market impact, concentrated bets that become impossible when managing real money from real investors.
The ₹50 Crore floor ensures every strategy in our ranking has crossed the threshold where operational reality starts to constrain performance. It's a minimum, not a high bar - but it filters out strategies whose numbers can't be replicated by the investors reading our ranking.
This floor applies uniformly. No exceptions for niche categories, no adjustments for newer strategies, no relaxation for any reason. Every strategy in the ranking meets it.
Tier System - Score and Tier, Not Stars
Every strategy in the ranking receives an AND Fintech Score — a number that reflects its combined peer outperformance and risk control within its category. The score is what drives the ranking order.
On top of the score, each strategy is assigned a tier based on where it falls within its category:
Top 10% of category - The strategies that rank in the top decile within their peer group. These have demonstrated both strong peer outperformance and disciplined risk management, sustained over 36 months.
Top 25% of category - Strong strategies that rank in the top quartile. Consistently above-median performance with controlled risk, but not quite at the very top of their category.
Top 50% of category - Above-median strategies. These outperform more than half their peer group across both performance and risk dimensions.
Why tiers instead of stars? Because a tier tells you exactly what it means. “Top 10% of Mid Cap PMS” is a precise, verifiable statement. “4.5 stars” is opaque -what does half a star represent? Who decided?
The score gives you granularity you can see exactly where a strategy stands relative to peers. The tier gives you a quick filter , scan for Top 10% strategies in your preferred category and you’ve already narrowed 400+ options to a meaningful shortlist.
One additional rule: a strategy’s tier changes only after the new tier holds for two consecutive months. This prevents noise. A strategy that slips from Top 10% to Top 25% for one month due to a single bad month - and recovers immediately - shouldn’t be reclassified. The two-month confirmation window smooths out transient volatility in rankings.
Data Integrity - What Gets a Strategy Excluded
A ranking is only as good as the data behind it. We apply three data integrity filters that can exclude a strategy from the ranking entirely, even if it meets all other criteria:
Monthly return consistency check. We compound each strategy's last 12 monthly returns and compare the result against the reported 1-year return. If the gap exceeds 3 percentage points, something doesn't add up. The strategy is excluded from the ranking until the discrepancy is resolved. It remains on the PMS Dashboard - we're not hiding it - but it doesn't receive a ranking or tier.
Zero-return filter. A strategy with three or more months of exactly 0.0% monthly return within the ranking window is excluded. Why? Because a genuine equity portfolio doesn't return precisely zero in a month - markets move. Months showing exactly 0.0% typically mean data wasn't reported. These zeroes artificially flatten risk metrics, making a strategy look less volatile than it actually is.
36-month compounding cross-check. We compound all 36 monthly returns and compare them against the reported 3-year return. If the gap exceeds 2 percentage points, the strategy is excluded. This is a deeper version of the 12-month check - it catches systematic data issues that might pass the shorter-window test.
These filters exist because data quality in the Indian PMS industry is imperfect. APMI disclosures are the best available source, but they're self-reported by fund houses. When the numbers don't reconcile, we'd rather exclude a strategy than rank it on unreliable data.
Strategies excluded by data integrity checks aren't penalised - they simply don't participate in the ranking until their data checks out.
What the Score Doesn't Do
Transparency requires saying what we don't claim.
The AND Fintech Score does not predict future performance. A strategy ranked in the Top 10% today may not be there next year. Markets change. Managers leave. AUM grows beyond what a strategy can deploy efficiently. The score reflects a strategy's track record over the most recent 36 months - nothing more.
The score doesn't evaluate fees. Two strategies with identical scores might charge very different fee structures. Fee analysis is critical to your net return and we track it separately - but it's a personal calculation (your return after your fee, given your specific terms) that doesn't belong in a standardised score.
The score doesn't replace due diligence. It's a filter, not a final answer. Use it to narrow 400+ strategies to a shortlist of 10-15. Then do the work: read the strategy documents, understand the investment approach, ask the seven questions that matter beyond the returns sheet, and ensure the strategy aligns with your risk profile, time horizon, and financial goals.
Why We Built This
India has 400+ registered PMS strategies. An investor approaching this universe for the first time faces an impossible selection problem. The marketing material all looks the same. The reported numbers are hard to compare across categories. The industry doesn't have a standardised, transparent evaluation framework that works across every strategy and every category.
The AND Fintech Score is our attempt to provide that framework. It's not perfect - no score is - but it's built on principles we're willing to defend publicly: peer-relative evaluation, risk-adjusted measurement, consistent data standards, and transparent eligibility rules.
Every number on the Best PMS in India ranking page is computed from the same methodology described above. No editorial overrides. No paid placements. No adjustments based on relationships. The score is what it is.
What You Should Do Next
Start with the ranking. Browse AND Fintech's Best PMS in India to see how strategies in your preferred category rank on the AND Fintech Score. Filter by category. Compare peer alpha and risk metrics. Identify the Top 10% and Top 25% strategies in your space.
Go deeper. Once you have a shortlist, use the PMS Dashboard to examine individual strategy profiles - AUM, returns across timeframes, risk metrics, benchmark comparison.
Understand the numbers. If alpha, Sortino ratio, or maximum drawdown are unfamiliar, read What Is Alpha, Sharpe, Sortino and Jensen's Alpha explained, and Beta, Standard Deviation and Maximum Drawdown.
Talk to someone. A ranking narrows the field. A conversation with an advisor who understands your full financial picture makes the final call. Book a discovery call when you're ready.
Browse Best PMS in India - ranked by AND Fintech Score → See PMS strategies ranked by Alpha → Compare PMS strategies side by side →