We show XIRR for investments older than 1 year, which handles your SIPs perfectly. For your tactical lumpsum moves in “undervalued sectorial funds,” absolute returns work just fine - same ranking, different format. But sure, we’ll internally discuss and look into the possibilities.
We show XIRR for investments older than 1 year, which handles your SIPs perfectly.
110% agreed with you.
For your tactical lumpsum moves in “undervalued sectorial funds,” absolute returns work just fine
Not agreed here
My point is
For tactical lumpsum moves in “undervalued sectorial fund” older than 1 year ( for example 2 or 3 year old) absolute returns not work fine infact is misleading…
You can use ixrr only for this right?
Sorry to jump in but then ixrr and cagr are both the same.
Am I missing something?
Yes xirr and cagr nearly the same , you can make sense out of them both,
but absolute return hide the most crucial factor time.which does not make sense…
You can use xirr for sip that is the best matrix for sip…
But
When you do lumpsum tactical investment in undervalued sectorial fund…which is more then 1 year old …for that absolute return is misleading where you need cagr…yes you can use xirr but not absolute return what they showed now in portfolio level…
My investment in one fund which is 2 and half year old showed 42.39% absolute returns in front when I watched xirr 21.33%…i think they should used xirr and cagr which they used earlier instead of absolute return and xirr( don’t have any problem with xirr )
But not finding any logical reason to use of absolute return …if you can give me one it would be helpful …may be I may missing something…thanks
But then xirr and cagr value will be exactly same for a lumpsum value.
Xirr is nothing but weighted avg cagr of multiple cash flows.
Are you saying absolute returns should be removed? If that’s the case you can ignore that value.
But then xirr and cagr value will be exactly same for a lumpsum value.
Xirr is nothing but weighted avg cagr of multiple cash flows.
Agreed…
So logically one of them xirr or cagr should be in front not absolute return…don’t u think so…
Absolute return is required for investments less than 1 year. Assume you buy something today and the first day itself it goes up 1 percent. Then cagr for the same will be 365+ percent. So it makes sense to have absolute returns too.
I personally experienced this in 2020 when I bought gilt funds. With bond prices raising, my xirr was shown 70 percent and all in the first 3 days before it normalised.
Also imagine your nav is below buy price. CAGR goes to huge negative. So what makes you feel better after 2 months of investment? 2% loss absolute? Or 12 percent cagr?
Coin does show individual transaction history per fund (click on a fund → Transactions tab) with dates and amounts — which is exactly what XIRR needs. They even have an XIRR field per fund,
but it shows 0, so it’s clearly broken on their end.
The gap: no bulk export. You’d have to manually copy transactions for each fund, which isn’t practical for a multi-fund portfolio.
So the honest answer is: Coin has the data but doesn’t expose it usefully. The XIRR field exists but doesn’t work. Until Zerodha fixes this, there’s no clean way to get accurate XIRR for
your full MF portfolio from Coin alone.
Most brokers still don’t show XIRR natively — Upstox doesn’t either as far as I know.
For Zerodha you can calculate it yourself. Go to Console → Fund Statement, select All Segments, set the date range from your first investment till today, and download the CSV. Then upload
it to an XIRR calculator — I’ve been using xirrledger.com, it reads the Zerodha statement directly and gives you proper time-weighted returns with a Nifty 50 benchmark comparison.
The numbers can be humbling, but at least you know where you actually stand.
You’ve actually identified something important. Let me break it down:
Absolute return just measures (current value − invested) ÷ invested. It ignores time completely — so 42% over 6 months and 42% over 6 years look identical. That’s why it’s misleading.
CAGR fixes this for a single lumpsum — it annualizes that absolute return assuming one entry, one exit, no other flows.
XIRR is the most honest metric because it handles any pattern of cash flows — SIPs, multiple lumpsums, partial withdrawals, all with exact dates. Even for a single lumpsum, XIRR and CAGR
will be very close. The gap you saw (42% absolute vs 21% XIRR) is XIRR doing its job correctly — 42% over 2.5 years is roughly 15% annualized, so 21% XIRR suggests your actual cash came in
at different points, not all at once.
The cleanest way to calculate portfolio XIRR is from the fund statement — not stock-level data. It already has every deposit and withdrawal with exact dates. Upload your Zerodha fund
statement (Console → Fund Statement → All Segments → CSV) to something like xirrledger.com and it gives you the full picture — what your actual annualized return is across all investments,
benchmarked against Nifty 50.