Marathon Trends Advisory Trend Following PMS Review: Performance, Fees & Should You Stay Invested?

Quick Summary

What Works	What Doesn’t
A genuinely different investment process — rules-based trend following with a fundamental overlay, not a static buy-and-hold portfolio	2-year alpha of -4.60% against the benchmark, and a 3-year return that is essentially flat versus benchmark (12.39% vs 12.53%)
Investors get an actual choice of fee plan — a flat 2% fixed fee, or a 1% fixed plus 20% performance fee above a 10% hurdle	Extremely high sector concentration, with Financial Services alone accounting for 44.55% of the portfolio
A disciplined, publicly documented fund manager with close to three decades of market experience across fundamental and technical approaches	The strategy is roughly matching, not beating, the active flexi-cap mutual fund category average over 3 years
Genuine multi-cap flexibility in practice — large, mid, and small-cap allocations all meaningfully represented, not concentrated in one segment	No 5-year track record yet, and no exit load schedule was listed in the data we reviewed

The verdict: This is a more balanced picture than some PMS reviews you’ll read — this strategy isn’t dramatically lagging its benchmark, but it also isn’t clearly earning the premium fee it charges.

Roughly matching a benchmark or category average while paying 1-2% fixed plus a possible performance fee is a real cost worth scrutinising, even without a dramatic underperformance story attached to it.

Table of Contents:

1. Who Should Read This
2. Who This PMS May Still Suit
3. Who Should Likely Avoid This PMS
4. What Is the Marathon Trends Advisory Trend Following Portfolio?
5. The PMS Value Framework
6. Performance Review
7. The Fee Reality
8. The Zero-Based Thinking Test
9. Decision Factor Scorecard
10. Summary Scorecard
11. The Core Portfolio Architecture Question
12. What a Genuinely Complementary PMS Looks Like
13. Exit Considerations
14. Key Takeaways
15. FAQs
16. Our Approach

Who Should Read This

• You are currently invested in the Marathon Trends Advisory Trend Following portfolio and want an honest read on whether it is earning its fee
• You are evaluating a systematic, trend-following PMS and want to understand how it differs from a traditional fundamentals-only strategy
• You are choosing between the Fixed Fee and Hybrid Fee plans this PMS offers and want to understand what each actually costs
• You already hold flexi-cap or multi-cap mutual funds and want to know whether this PMS genuinely complements or duplicates that exposure
• You want a fair, data-first read that doesn’t overstate a modest underperformance into something more dramatic than it is

Who This PMS May Still Suit

• An investor who specifically wants a systematic, rules-based trend-following approach as a diversifier alongside fundamentals-only holdings, and values that process difference on its own merits
• Someone who appreciates fee flexibility and wants to choose between a flat-fee and a performance-linked structure based on their own conviction and cost sensitivity
• An investor comfortable with a concentrated, high-conviction, sector-tilted portfolio, particularly one with a large exposure to Financial Services
• Someone who values genuine market-cap flexibility — this portfolio moves across large, mid, and small caps rather than staying anchored to one segment

Who Should Likely Avoid This PMS

• If you are looking for a strategy that has clearly and consistently beaten its benchmark, the 2-year and 3-year numbers here do not make that case
• If you already hold flexi-cap or multi-cap mutual funds with similar large, well-known names in the portfolio, check for overlap before assuming this adds real diversification
• If a nearly 45% weight in a single sector makes you uncomfortable, this concentration profile is worth a second look
• If you want full clarity on exit costs before committing, the exit load schedule was not available in the data we reviewed — get this in writing from Marathon before investing

What Is the Marathon Trends Advisory Trend Following Portfolio?

Here is the strategy in plain terms: Marathon Trends Advisory Pvt Ltd runs the Trend Following portfolio as a PMS mandate built around a three-step process — Quality, Trend, Execution.

The approach identifies fundamentally strong businesses and invests once price trends confirm market conviction through momentum and relative strength, rotating capital out of weakening stocks and into emerging leaders.

That is the promise.

Below is what the data — as on 30 June 2026 — actually shows.

Key Fact	Detail
AMC	Marathon Trends Advisory Pvt Ltd
Strategy	Trend Following
Category	PMS — Multi Cap & Flexi Cap
Fund Manager	Atul Suri, CEO – Portfolio Manager
Benchmark	S&P BSE 500 TRI
Inception Date	1 April 2023
Portfolio Age	3 years, 2 months
Minimum Investment	₹50,00,000
AUM	₹349.44 crore
Market Cap Mix	Large Cap 37.41% · Mid Cap 43.28% · Small Cap 16.33% · Cash 2.98%
Total Number of Stocks	24
Top 5 Stock Concentration	28.25%
Top 5 Sector Concentration	86.85%

Atul Suri brings almost three decades of experience, beginning as a fundamental analyst at Parag Parikh Financial Advisory Services in 1991, followed by a Masters in Banking and Finance in Sydney with a focus on quant and technical analysis.

He returned to India in the late 1990s to lead the Private Client Group at Birla Sun Life Securities, founded Marathon Capital in 2003 focusing on index derivatives trading, and joined RARE Enterprises in 2008 as an Analyst before building this PMS.

His stated approach combines fundamental and technical analysis, which shows up directly in the portfolio’s process: quality-screened businesses, bought and held only once price trend confirms the thesis.

One honest note before we move on: the exit load schedule for this strategy was not listed in the fee data we reviewed on the public source.

That is not unusual — cost details like this are the kind of thing Marathon’s team will confirm directly with you as a prospect or existing investor, and it is worth getting in writing before you commit.

To their credit, most other data points here — including the full stock count (24) and the complete fee structure for both plans — were clearly disclosed, which is not always the case across every PMS we review.

The mandate does execute what it says on paper — this is a genuinely multi-cap, trend-driven portfolio, with meaningful weight across large, mid, and small caps rather than a static allocation.

Where the story needs a closer look is in the numbers.

The PMS Value Framework

Before diving into the detailed data, here is the lens we use to evaluate every PMS we review:

Gross Alpha > Fee = Value Added | Gross Alpha ≈ Fee = Break-Even | Gross Alpha < Fee = Value Destroyed

For a PMS to genuinely earn its premium fee, the value it generates over the benchmark — before fees — needs to comfortably exceed what it charges you.

Where does the Trend Following portfolio sit on this framework?

This one is genuinely closer to the middle than the extremes.

The 3-year net return of 12.39% sits almost exactly on top of the benchmark’s 12.53% — a gap of just -0.14 percentage points.

That is functionally a break-even outcome before you even account for the fee being charged on top of it.

Once you add a 2% flat fee (or a 1% fee plus a share of any profit above a 10% hurdle), a near-benchmark-matching gross result becomes a net cost to you, even though the magnitude here is far smaller than what we’ve flagged in some other PMS reviews.

Performance Review

Let’s start with the question you should be asking yourself: when did you last actually check whether this PMS is beating its benchmark, net of fees, across every period that matters — not just the one that looks best?

Here is the full trailing return picture, as on 30 June 2026, compared with the portfolio’s own stated benchmark:

Period	Trend Following Portfolio	S&P BSE 500 TRI (Benchmark)	Alpha (+/-)
1 Month	2.15%	1.73%	+0.42%
3 Month	12.16%	12.10%	+0.06%
6 Month	-2.10%	-3.53%	+1.43%
1 Year	-0.35%	-1.96%	+1.61%
2 Year	-3.08%	1.52%	-4.60%
3 Year	12.39%	12.53%	-0.14%
Since Inception	17.77%	15.85%	+1.92%

A 5-year trailing figure is not shown — the strategy is 3 years and 2 months old, so this data does not exist yet.

This is a genuinely mixed picture, and it deserves to be read as one rather than flattened into a single verdict.

The 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and since-inception numbers all show positive alpha — modest in most cases, but real.

The 2-year window stands out as the one clearly weak spot, at -4.60% alpha, while the 3-year figure is close enough to the benchmark to call essentially flat.

What does this pattern suggest?

It reads like a strategy that had a strong start (reflected in the healthy since-inception number), moved through a difficult stretch that shows up most clearly in the 2-year window, and has stabilised somewhat more recently.

That is a plausible story for a trend-following approach, which by design will underperform during periods when trends reverse sharply or markets move sideways without clear direction — and can outperform when strong, sustained trends emerge.

Whether the recent stabilisation continues or the 2-year weakness resurfaces is not something the data can answer yet.

For additional context, active flexi-cap mutual funds — the closest available comparison category, given this strategy’s own “Multi Cap & Flexi Cap” classification — have delivered an average 3-year return of roughly 14.19% and a 1-year average of roughly 7.25%.

Against that yardstick, this PMS’s 3-year net return of 12.39% trails the category average by about 1.8 percentage points, and its 1-year return of -0.35% trails the category average by a wider 7.6 percentage points.

Neither gap is dramatic on its own, but both point the same direction: a plain, lower-cost active flexi-cap mutual fund has, on average, delivered more than this PMS over the same stretch.

The Fee Reality

Here is the thing. A fee is not inherently a problem.

A fee is only a problem when it is not earning its keep — and this strategy gives you an unusually clear way to think about that, because it offers two different fee plans.

Fee structure, stated clearly:

Plan	Minimum Commitment	Fixed Fee (p.a.)	Performance Fee	Hurdle
Fixed Fee Plan	₹50 lakh	2.00%	Not applicable	Not applicable
Hybrid Fee Plan	₹50 lakh	1.00%	20.00%	10.00%

This is worth understanding properly.

Under the Fixed Fee plan, you pay a flat 2% every year regardless of performance — simple, but it means the manager has no direct profit-sharing stake in your returns.

Under the Hybrid plan, you pay a lower 1% base fee, but hand over 20% of any profit above a 10% hurdle rate. If the strategy clears its hurdle comfortably, the Hybrid plan can work out cheaper for you overall; if it does not, the Fixed plan may end up being the less expensive route.

Given the 3-year net return of 12.39%, an investor on the Hybrid plan would likely have crossed the 10% hurdle in strong periods but not necessarily in the weaker 2-year stretch — which makes the choice of plan a genuinely important decision, not a minor detail.

Fee Drag on ₹50 Lakhs: The Rupee Picture

Scenario	Gross Return Assumed (Estimated)	Corpus After 5 Years	Corpus After 7 Years
Trend Following Portfolio (Net, at trailing 3-year CAGR of 12.39%)	12.39%	₹89.66 lakh	₹1.13 crore
Active MF Category Average — Flexi Cap (Net, at category 5-year CAGR of 12.86%)	12.86%	₹91.55 lakh	₹1.17 crore

Notice how much smaller this gap is compared to what a larger underperformance would produce: roughly ₹1.89 lakh over 5 years and ₹3.36 lakh over 7 years on a ₹50 lakh corpus.

That is a real number, but it is not a dramatic one — and that is precisely the point of showing it plainly rather than dramatizing it.

The honest read here is that you are paying a premium PMS fee for a return that is, at best, roughly in line with what a low-cost active flexi-cap mutual fund has delivered on average.

“Roughly in line, at a higher cost” is still a value question worth asking yourself — it just isn’t the same conversation as a strategy trailing its category by double digits.

The Zero-Based Thinking Test

Here is a question worth sitting with for a moment: knowing everything you know today — the near-benchmark 3-year return, the weak 2-year stretch, the fee structure and your choice between two plans — if you were starting fresh with this same ₹50 lakhs right now, would you invest it in this same product?

Not “should I stay because I’ve already committed.” Just: knowing what you now know, would you choose this again?

This is not a trick question, and it is not designed to make you feel foolish.

You invested in a strategy with a credible, experienced manager and a distinctive process. That was a reasonable decision in 2023.

The information available to you has since grown — you now have over three years of actual performance data to weigh against that original decision.

Here is what tends to happen instead. Investors stay invested because the since-inception number still looks respectable, without separating out how much of that was driven by an early strong run versus more recent, closer-to-benchmark results.

Or because reviewing a PMS statement and having a real conversation about fee plans feels like more effort than simply continuing.

Flip the framing. Staying invested should require the same scrutiny as a fresh decision — not less, and not inflated just because the headline since-inception number still reads well.

If you would sign this same contract today, knowing what you now know, that is a legitimate, informed choice to keep holding.

If you would not, staying is not the neutral option — it is an active decision that deserves its own justification.

Decision Factor Scorecard

Decision Factor	Rating	Analysis
Uniqueness vs. existing MF portfolio	🟡 Mixed	The trend-following, rules-based process is a genuinely different methodology from a typical buy-and-hold mutual fund. But the actual top holdings — Cummins India, Federal Bank, Shriram Finance, AU Small Finance Bank, and Bharat Electronics — are large, well-covered names that likely already appear across many diversified flexi-cap and multi-cap mutual fund portfolios. The process is different; the underlying stocks may not be.
Alpha consistency across all periods	🟡 Mixed	Alpha is positive across 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and since-inception periods, but clearly negative over 2 years (-4.60%) and essentially flat over 3 years (-0.14%). This is a genuinely inconsistent pattern rather than a clean trend in either direction.
Justification for PMS premium fee	🟡 Mixed	The 3-year net return sits almost exactly at the benchmark, and trails the active flexi-cap mutual fund category average by roughly 1.8 percentage points. That does not clearly justify a 2% flat fee, or a 1% fee plus 20% profit share. It is also not a dramatic value-destruction story — it is a “you could likely have done as well or better for less” story.
Downside protection in market corrections	🟡 Mixed	Over the most recent 6-month window, the portfolio fell less than its benchmark (-2.10% vs -3.53%), suggesting some downside cushioning. But over the 2-year window, the portfolio fell (-3.08%) while the benchmark actually rose (+1.52%) — a meaningful divergence in the wrong direction during that stretch.
Portfolio complement for MF investor	🟡 Mixed	The systematic trend-following process could behave differently from a static mutual fund holding period over period, offering some genuine process diversification. But given the mainstream, large-cap-tilted nature of the top holdings, the underlying stock exposure may not diversify your portfolio as much as the process description suggests.
Mandate purity and discipline	🟢 Pass	The portfolio genuinely spans large (37.41%), mid (43.28%), and small cap (16.33%) allocations, consistent with its “Multi Cap & Flexi Cap” mandate and its stated approach of rotating capital based on trend strength rather than staying anchored to one market-cap segment.
Fund manager transparency	🟢 Pass	Atul Suri has a well-documented, verifiable career spanning Parag Parikh Financial Advisory Services, Birla Sun Life Securities, Marathon Capital, and RARE Enterprises. Most portfolio data, including the full stock count and both fee plans, was clearly disclosed. The exit load schedule was the one data point not listed in the source we reviewed, which is worth confirming directly with Marathon rather than treating as a transparency concern.
Investment horizon suitability	🟡 Mixed	At just over 3 years old, this strategy has a longer track record than some newer PMS launches, but still lacks a 5-year figure and has not yet demonstrated performance through a full, extended market cycle.
Market cap flexibility utilisation	🟢 Pass	Unlike a strategy that claims flexibility but stays parked in one segment, this portfolio’s actual composition — meaningful large, mid, and small-cap weights — confirms the trend-based, cap-agnostic approach is being genuinely executed.
Concentration vs. diversification balance	🔴 Concern	Top 5 sectors account for 86.85% of the portfolio, with Financial Services alone at 44.55% — a very large single-sector bet. Top 5 stock concentration (28.25%) is more moderate, but the sector-level concentration here is the highest we’ve flagged across recent reviews.
AUM size and strategy capacity	🟢 Pass	At ₹349.44 crore, with an average market cap of roughly ₹1,92,779 crore, this strategy operates in large, liquid names with no evident capacity constraints.
Manager tenure and continuity risk	🟢 Pass	Atul Suri founded Marathon Capital in 2003 and has run this specific PMS since its 2023 inception, bringing decades of trend-following and technical analysis experience to a strategy built specifically around that discipline. Continuity risk here is low.
Fee plan flexibility	🟢 Pass	Unlike many PMS strategies that offer a single fee structure, this one gives you an actual choice between a flat 2% fee and a 1%-plus-20%-above-hurdle hybrid plan — letting you match the cost structure to your own conviction and risk appetite, a genuine point in its favour.

Summary Scorecard

Decision Factor	Rating
Uniqueness vs. existing MF portfolio	🟡
Alpha consistency across all periods	🟡
Justification for PMS premium fee	🟡
Downside protection in market corrections	🟡
Portfolio complement for MF investor	🟡
Mandate purity and discipline	🟢
Fund manager transparency	🟢
Investment horizon suitability	🟡
Market cap flexibility utilisation	🟢
Concentration vs. diversification balance	🔴
AUM size and strategy capacity	🟢
Manager tenure and continuity risk	🟢
Fee plan flexibility	🟢

The Core Portfolio Architecture Question

Here is a way of thinking about your total portfolio that has nothing to do with any single product: a core portfolio, built on low-cost, diversified mutual funds — index funds, flexi-cap, multi-asset — that you can hold through every market cycle without worrying about manager-specific risk.

And a satellite portfolio, made up of selective PMS and AIF strategies, whose entire job is to genuinely complement the core, not duplicate it, by reaching opportunities or processes your mutual funds structurally cannot.

The test for any satellite holding is simple: does it access something your core cannot — whether that is a different process, a different market segment, or a different risk profile? And does the return you are getting for that access actually exceed what the same money would have earned in a lower-cost alternative?

That is the lens worth applying here, and to any PMS you hold.

What a Genuinely Complementary PMS Looks Like

Without naming any specific product, here is what separates a satellite holding that earns its place from one that does not:

• It generates consistent net-of-fee alpha across multiple market cycles, not just a strong initial run that fades into flat or negative territory
• Its process and its underlying holdings are both genuinely different from what your existing mutual funds already own — not just the process
• It demonstrates resilience across a full range of market conditions, including periods when its style (trend-following, value, momentum, or otherwise) is out of favour
• Its fee structure, including any performance-linked component, is proportionate to the actual alpha delivered, not just the alpha promised
• Where multiple fee plans are offered, the choice is explained clearly enough that you can make an informed decision based on your own conviction and cost sensitivity

Exit Considerations

If you do decide to exit, here is what you need to know:

• Exit load: The exit load schedule was not specified in the data we reviewed for this strategy. Confirm the exact terms directly with Marathon Trends Advisory before making any exit decision
• Tax treatment: PMS holdings are taxed at the stock level, not at the portfolio level. Each individual stock sale within the portfolio is subject to capital gains tax based on its own holding period — short-term or long-term — rather than being treated as a single mutual-fund-style redemption
• Staggered exit: Given the stock-level tax treatment, a phased exit — spread over a few tranches — can help manage the capital gains impact more efficiently than an all-at-once redemption
• Timing: Given the strategy’s trend-following nature, an exit decision made purely in reaction to a recent weak or strong stretch risks working against you either way. The decision should rest on your assessment of the process and fee value, not on chasing or fleeing recent momentum

Key Takeaways

1. The Marathon Trends Advisory Trend Following portfolio shows a genuinely mixed alpha pattern — positive over 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and since-inception, but negative over 2 years and essentially flat over 3 years
2. The 3-year net return of 12.39% sits almost exactly at its benchmark’s 12.53%, functionally a break-even result before fees
3. Against the active flexi-cap mutual fund category average, this PMS trails by roughly 1.8 percentage points over 3 years and roughly 7.6 percentage points over 1 year
4. Investors get a genuine choice between a 2% flat fee plan and a 1%-plus-20%-above-hurdle hybrid plan — a meaningful decision that deserves real thought rather than a default selection
5. Sector concentration is the highest flagged in our recent reviews, with Financial Services alone accounting for 44.55% of the portfolio
6. The strategy genuinely uses its multi-cap mandate, with meaningful large, mid, and small-cap exposure rather than staying anchored to one segment
7. At just over 3 years old, the strategy still lacks a 5-year track record and has not been tested through a longer, more complete market cycle
8. Whether this PMS deserves a place in your portfolio depends on whether you value its process differentiation enough to pay a premium for what has so far been close-to-benchmark performance

FAQs

Q1. Is the Marathon Trends Advisory Trend Following portfolio a good or bad PMS?

The Marathon Trends Advisory Trend Following portfolio is a genuinely mixed case rather than a clear-cut answer. The 3-year return is close to its benchmark, and alpha is positive in some periods and negative in others. It has not delivered a dramatic underperformance, but it also has not clearly justified its premium fee over a low-cost active flexi-cap mutual fund.

Q2. What is the minimum investment for the Marathon Trends Advisory Trend Following portfolio PMS?

The minimum investment for the Marathon Trends Advisory Trend Following portfolio PMS is ₹50,00,000 for either the Fixed Fee or Hybrid Fee plan, in line with SEBI’s regulatory floor for portfolio management services.

Q3. What is the difference between the Fixed Fee and Hybrid Fee plans?

The Fixed Fee plan charges a flat 2% per year regardless of performance. The Hybrid Fee plan charges a lower 1% base fee plus 20% of any profit above a 10% hurdle rate. Which is cheaper for you depends on how strongly the strategy performs — the Hybrid plan tends to cost less if returns are modest, and more if returns are strong.

Q4. What is trend following in a PMS context?

It is a systematic, rules-based investment approach that combines fundamental stock selection with technical confirmation — buying once a stock’s price trend confirms conviction, and exiting weakening positions to rotate into stronger ones, rather than holding a fixed portfolio indefinitely.

Q5. How does PMS underperformance compare to mutual fund underperformance?

A mutual fund’s expense ratio is typically far lower than a PMS’s fee structure, so even a modest underperformance in a PMS compounds a larger fee drag on top of weaker returns than the same gap would in a mutual fund.

Q6. How is PMS taxed compared to mutual funds?

PMS holdings are taxed at the individual stock level — each stock’s sale triggers its own short-term or long-term capital gains calculation, unlike a mutual fund where you are taxed only on your own unit redemption.

Q7. How do I exit a PMS?

You instruct the fund manager to liquidate holdings, fully or in stages. Given the stock-level tax treatment, a staggered exit is often more tax-efficient than a single lump-sum instruction.

Q8. Is a high sector concentration always a bad sign?

Not automatically — concentration is often how conviction-driven managers aim to generate alpha. But it does raise the stakes: concentration without demonstrated outperformance, as is currently the case here, adds risk without a clearly offsetting reward.

Q9. What is a core and satellite investment strategy?

It is a portfolio construction approach where your core holdings — typically low-cost, diversified mutual funds — provide broad, dependable market exposure, while a smaller satellite allocation to PMS or AIF strategies is used selectively to access opportunities or processes the core structurally cannot reach.

Q10. Should I choose the Fixed Fee or Hybrid Fee plan if I do invest?

That depends on your conviction in the strategy’s ability to clear its 10% hurdle consistently. If you believe it will, the Hybrid plan’s lower base fee may work out cheaper over time. If you are less certain, the predictability of the Fixed Fee plan may suit you better. This is worth discussing directly with Marathon or your advisor before choosing.

Our Approach

We do work with select PMS strategies as part of a satellite allocation for clients — but this is not one we currently recommend, given how close its returns have tracked its benchmark and category average while charging a premium fee.

If you already hold this PMS alongside mutual funds, we’re happy to sit down with you as your CFP and map both portfolios side by side, so you can see clearly whether this holding is genuinely complementing your mutual fund allocation or simply overlapping with it.