2,156
Real distinct open-ended productsAMFI publishes one line per scheme, per plan, per option. HDFC Flexi Cap appears four times — Direct and Regular, Growth and IDCW — and it is one fund, not four. Collapsing those duplicates is the only thing this step does; nothing is discarded for being small, new or unfamiliar.
A parallel scheme-code-keyed view of the same universe returns 2,037. A product group with no single resolvable Direct + Growth representative is excluded rather than assigned a guessed identity.
474
Passed · from 521 category-mappedCan we classify it? Does it have a real, current NAV? Is its identity unambiguous? Only five of Prospera's nine categories can be resolved from AMFI's own taxonomy — Flexi Cap, Mid Cap, Small Cap, Debt and Arbitrage. Pharma, Defence, Infrastructure and Energy cannot be sized from this data at all, and the system reports that rather than guessing.
19,51,830
Dated NAV records held in-houseCandidates are ranked on real dated NAV history alone — a minimum of 100 real observations and 180 real elapsed days, with the window capped at 365. 459 funds are rankable; 15 are set aside for insufficient history, kept in the table with the specific reason rather than scored with an invented number.
Not a Sharpe ratio — we have no defensible risk-free rate source, so we do not use the name.
Not a “1Y” window — dense full-market history begins 7 Oct 2025, 225 of the ~250 trading days a real one-year series needs. Each fund’s real elapsed window (~323 days) is reported instead.
425
Active research candidatesResearch capacity is finite, so pool slots are allocated in proportion to each category's own maximum portfolio allocation — the same category weights the portfolio-construction layer uses. A naive global cutoff was tested live and filled 147 of a 150-slot pool with ultra-low-volatility overnight and debt funds.
A fund stops being a dot here. Each candidate gets a mark out of ten on thirteen specific things. Each of the thirteen carries a fixed importance weight. The weights sum to exactly 100, never change between funds, and are never adjusted after seeing the answer.
77%
Of every score is analyst judgmentData becomes human interpretation becomes a decision. Nine of the thirteen parameters — 77% of total weight — are analyst judgment, by the methodology's own design. Four are pure arithmetic: FMT, AMQ, AUT and ERS. We think judgment is the right way to research a fund, and we publish the split rather than burying it.
Even the 23% that is formula-computed rests on evidence we hold for only part of the market: AMQ is covered 457/457, FMT and ERS for roughly 45 schemes each, AUT for the 56 researched funds only.
6,487
Sourced, dated, objective data points across 457 schemesAn evidence row can never contain a score. A score row can never contain a narrative view. The separation is enforced at the database schema level, not by convention — so evidence never quietly becomes a recommendation.
Append-only, each row carrying field name, value, source, source URL, the date the source states it is “as on”, retrieval timestamp and a confidence flag.
Nine manual parameters × 457 schemes, exactly complete. Every change ever made is mirrored to an append-only audit trail of 10,797 rows.
Analyst narrative, thesis, stance, allocation cap and Investment Committee sign-off.
81.9
Parag Parikh Flexi Cap Fund · FC-001Each parameter's contribution is its raw mark out of ten multiplied by its published weight. The weights never change between funds and are never adjusted after seeing the answer.
| Param | Raw | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMQ | 10 | 12% | 12.0 |
| PQT | 10 | 11% | 11.0 |
| CON | 10 | 10% | 10.0 |
| VAL | 9 | 10% | 9.0 |
| STW | 7 | 9% | 6.3 |
| FMT | 8 | 8% | 6.4 |
| DSP | 9 | 8% | 7.2 |
| OPP | 8 | 8% | 6.4 |
| MOM | 6 | 7% | 4.2 |
| AMQ | 3 | 6% | 1.8 |
| AUT | 6 | 5% | 3.0 |
| ERS | 7 | 4% | 2.8 |
| THS | 9 | 2% | 1.8 |
| Final Score | 81.9 | ||
Rating bands are fixed: ≥75 high conviction · ≥65 moderate buy · ≥55 watchlist · below that, avoid. Note AMQ at 3/10 — a genuinely good boutique scores badly on a parameter that measures the size of the fund house. That is a real limitation of the model, disclosed rather than tuned away.
A fund has to pass five checkpoints, in order, to become a recommendation. Not for a fund we like, and not for a fund house we work with.
AUM ≥ category floor · track record ≥ category minimum · SEBI clean
Researched book (56) — All 56 researched funds pass.
V7 pool (425) — Genuinely unconfirmed for the majority of the 425. Real AUM and track-record evidence does not exist for them — not passed, not failed.
Final Score ≥ 45 · quant sub-score ≥ 20 / 50
Researched book (56) — 0 of the 56 sit here; all clear it.
V7 pool (425) — 69 of 425 clear it — 16.2%.
Final Score ≥ 55 · Top 10 by score within category
Researched book (56) — 3 of the 56 stop here.
V7 pool (425) — Zero of 425. The pool's best score is 52.7.
Final Score ≥ 62 · Top 5 in category · Thesis ≥ 6 · no active Watchlist flag
Researched book (56) — 19 of the 56 stop here.
V7 pool (425) — Zero of 425.
Final Score ≥ 70 · Top 2 in category · written IC narrative · primary/secondary designation
Researched book (56) — 34 of the 56 reach it.
V7 pool (425) — Zero of 425. Every category's best candidate falls 17+ points short.
It would be a tidier story to draw one funnel from 14,295 straight through to 18. It would also be false.
Scores 59.5–89.4, mean 72.72. All 18 recommendations on this site come from here.
Same methodology, same thresholds. Scores 36.1–52.7, mean 43.3. Zero of the 425 currently qualify.
We scored 425 new candidates under exactly the same system that produced our current book. Not one beat what we already recommend. So the 18 stayed — but they stayed because we checked, not because we did not look.
Ranking is strictly within a category. A Debt fund scoring 89.4 does not displace a Flexi Cap fund scoring 81.9 — they are not competing for the same job in a portfolio. Each category also carries a maximum share of a portfolio it can take.
A flag is a live monitoring instruction, not a verdict. Our standing rule reads: “Any watchlisted fund excluded from Top 2 regardless of score. IC must formally remove to reinstate.” Two of the eighteen currently override it.
Upgrade condition — SEBI all-clear + score ≥ 72 for two months
Upgrade condition — AUM crosses ₹8,000 Cr organically
Upgrade condition — SEBI case closed + AMQ ≥ 8
Upgrade condition — No upgrade — already Primary; monitor P/E only
IC override — Primary pick, Defence. Retained as the category primary despite an active Valuation Watch flag. Capped at 12% allocation.
Upgrade condition — SEBI cleared = full secondary
IC override — Secondary pick, Infrastructure. Maintained as the #2 pick on a satellite basis while the SEBI matter is open. Max 5% allocation only.
Upgrade condition — 5Y CAGR recovers above 17% for two consecutive months
18
Recommendations14,295 listings · 2,156 real products · 474 through the structural screen · 425 active candidates · 56 fully scored · 27 ranked · 18 recommendations, 9 primary and 9 secondary across 9 categories.
18
9 primary · 9 secondary · 9 categoriesPrimary is intra-category rank one at the point of Committee review; secondary is rank two. Both cleared identical gates. Every one of these comes from the published research book — not from the 425-fund V7 pool, which has not yet promoted a single fund.
Scores are the published 13-parameter Final Score for each fund. They are comparable within a category and deliberately not across categories.
Stated plainly, because a client who discovers one of these independently will discount everything else on this page.
Figures on this page are a point-in-time snapshot of the Research Engine v7 methodology, verified 31 August 2026 against the production database, the source workbook and the live application.