Unifi Capital Blended Rangoli PMS Review: Performance, Fees & Should You Stay Invested?
Published by Holistic Financial Services | Data as on 30th April 2026 | Net-of-fee analysis throughout
| What Works | What Doesn’t |
| Strong since-inception alpha: +4.19% above benchmark (June 2017) | Underperforming benchmark on 1Y, 2Y, 3Y, and 5Y trailing periods (net of fees) |
| Low leverage; improving ROE profile in portfolio companies | FY26: -8.28% vs benchmark -3.12% — a 5.16% annual gap |
| Active market-cap rotation demonstrating genuine mandate execution | 2% fixed fee creates structural drag even in flat or negative return years |
| Well-articulated 7-strategy blend framework with disciplined mandate | 56% small-cap exposure is accessible via lower-cost vehicles |
Verdict: Blended Rangoli has a creditable long-run track record. But the last three financial years of net-of-fee data tell a story worth examining carefully before deciding to stay.
| AMC | Unifi Capital Pvt Ltd |
| Strategy Type | Discretionary PMS — Multi-Cap & Flexi-Cap |
| Benchmark | S&P BSE 500 TRI |
| Inception Date | 12 June 2017 |
| Fund Manager | Mr E Prithvi Raj |
| Minimum Investment | ₹50 Lakhs |
| Fee Structure | 2.00% p.a. fixed (charged monthly on day-end value) |
| Market Cap Breakdown | 56% Small Cap | 17% Mid Cap | 26% Large Cap |
| Number of Stocks | 25–30 stocks; top 15 holdings = ~75% of portfolio |
| AUM (Strategy) | ~₹11,765 Crores (as of April 2026) |
Blended Rangoli is Unifi Capital’s flagship strategy — and arguably its most ambitious. The premise is compelling on paper: cherry-pick the best ideas from across seven distinct thematic strategies that Unifi runs simultaneously — DVD (deep value), Spin Off, HoldCo, APJ20 (globally competitive businesses), Green (sustainability themes), Insider Shadow (promoter-backed conviction), and BCAD (organised sector migration). The result is meant to be a portfolio that thrives across market cycles, sparing you the effort of migrating between strategies yourself.
It’s a sophisticated proposition. Whether the data from the last several years validates that proposition is what this review is about.
When did you last actually check whether this PMS is beating its benchmark — net of fees?
| Period | Blended Rangoli | S&P BSE 500 TRI | Alpha |
| 1 Month | 11.27% | 10.38% | +0.89% |
| 3 Months | -1.99% | -1.73% | -0.26% |
| 6 Months | -5.97% | -4.33% | -1.64% |
| 1 Year | -1.11% | +3.64% | -4.75% |
| 2 Year | 0.17% | 4.67% | -4.50% |
| 3 Year | 11.85% | 14.94% | -3.09% |
| 5 Year | 13.61% | 13.88% | -0.27% |
| Since Inception | 17.19% | 13.00% | +4.19% |
The since-inception number is real and deserves acknowledgment. A 4.19% annualised alpha over nearly nine years is genuinely meaningful — ₹100 invested at inception has grown to ₹410 versus ₹297 for the benchmark. Unifi earned that track record.
But here is what the data is telling you that you may not want to hear: across every meaningful recent period — 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and essentially 5 years — the net-of-fee return has lagged the benchmark. The 5-year alpha is -0.27%, barely a rounding error. The 3-year gap is -3.09% annualised. The 1-year and 2-year gaps are wider still.
| FY Year | Blended Rangoli | Benchmark | Alpha |
| FY18 | 21% | 7% | +14% |
| FY19 | -2% | 10% | -12% |
| FY20 | -24% | -26% | +2% |
| FY21 | 127% | 79% | +48% |
| FY22 | 39% | 22% | +17% |
| FY23 | -1% | -1% | 0% |
| FY24 | 38% | 40% | -2% |
| FY25 | 3% | 6% | -3% |
| FY26 | -8.28% | -3.12% | -5.16% |
Read this table carefully. The vintage alpha — FY18, FY21, FY22 — was extraordinary. That performance pulled the since-inception TWRR to where it stands today. But FY24, FY25, and FY26 have each underperformed the benchmark. Three consecutive years of negative alpha, with FY26 the most pronounced at -5.16%.
Is this a style cycle headwind? Possibly. A small-cap and special situation tilt can lag during large-cap-led recoveries, which characterised much of FY24 and FY25. That context is legitimate. But here is the harder question: at what point does a style cycle explanation become a strategy concern? Three consecutive years is a pattern, not noise.
The 2% management fee leaves your portfolio every single year. Not contingent on performance. Not adjusted for market conditions. Not paused during drawdowns. In FY26, when your portfolio fell 8.28%, the management fee still applied.
Here is what that fee structure means in rupee terms, starting with ₹50 lakhs.
| Scenario | 5-Year Value | 7-Year Value |
| Blended Rangoli (13.61% net, 5Y TWRR) | ₹94.65 Lakhs | ₹1.22 Crores |
| BSE 500 Index Fund (~13.73% net) | ₹95.13 Lakhs | ₹1.23 Crores |
| Category Median Flexi-Cap MF (~12% net) | ₹88.12 Lakhs | ₹1.11 Crores |
Over five years, Blended Rangoli’s net return has essentially matched a low-cost index fund. The gap is ₹48,000 over five years on a ₹50 lakh investment — in the index fund’s favour. For a 2% annual fee product, that gap should not exist. The fee drag is structural: you are paying for active management that has not, in this recent window, added value over passive.
Now look at the 3-year comparison. At 11.85% for the PMS versus 14.94% for the benchmark over three years, a ₹50 lakh investment compounds to roughly ₹69.97 lakhs in the PMS versus ₹75.65 lakhs had you simply held the benchmark. That is a ₹5.68 lakh gap over three years. Not catastrophic — but entirely the product of paying a 2% fee for underperformance.
And that is before we compare to a well-run active flexi-cap mutual fund available at a fraction of the cost.
If you did not already own this PMS — if this money were sitting in your bank account today — would you invest it into Blended Rangoli right now, knowing everything you now know?
This is the most honest question in this entire review. Read it again if you need to.
Zero-based thinking cuts through inertia. It forces you to evaluate the investment as it is today — not as it was when you entered, not based on the capital already committed, not based on the relationship with your distributor, and not based on the since-inception return that belongs mostly to an earlier market era.
Ask yourself honestly: Would you sign up for a 2% fixed fee today, knowing the last three years have delivered negative alpha? Would you accept a 56% small-cap portfolio knowing the near-term recovery narrative is driven by large caps? Would you commit ₹50 lakhs minimum knowing you already have exposure to similar sectors through your mutual funds?
If the answer to any of those questions is “probably not” — that is not a reason to feel foolish for having invested. It is simply a signal that the original decision was made with different information in different conditions. The rational question is not “was I wrong then?” but “what does the evidence say I should do now?”
Staying invested requires a positive case. Not just “I’ve already committed” — that is sunk cost bias. Not just “it might recover” — that is hope, not strategy. The positive case must be specific: the strategy’s edge is intact, the style cycle headwind is clearly temporary and measurable, and the 2% annual fee will be justified by future alpha.
That case may exist. But you should be able to articulate it precisely before you choose to stay.
Blended Rangoli’s 56% small-cap allocation is its most differentiated characteristic. If your mutual fund portfolio is primarily large-cap or flexi-cap oriented, this strategy takes your capital somewhere genuinely different.
However, the healthcare (15%), consumer (10%), and automobile (5.5%) exposures are sectors your mutual funds almost certainly visit regularly. The financial services weight — 21% banking and financials plus 5% fee-based financials — is a near-universal presence across Indian equity funds. The genuine differentiation is concentrated in the small-cap and special situation tilt, not the full portfolio.
The honest question: does your existing portfolio already own small-cap and mid-cap exposure through a dedicated fund? If yes, the incremental differentiation this strategy adds is narrower than it appears.
This is where the data is hardest to look away from. Negative alpha on 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year trailing periods. Flat alpha on 5-year. Only since-inception remains positive — and that is being sustained by returns generated several years ago.
Alpha consistency is one of the core justifications for the PMS fee premium over mutual funds. When it is absent across every recent measurement period, the structural argument for the product weakens. Not permanently — but the burden of proof shifts. You are entitled to ask: what has changed, and what evidence suggests it will change back?
At 2% per year, the fee justification requires clear net alpha over a passive index fund. The 5-year net return of 13.61% versus the index’s effective ~13.73% does not clear that bar. The 3-year comparison — 11.85% versus 14.94% for the benchmark — makes the gap more apparent.
The fee is not unreasonable by PMS industry norms. The problem is specific to this measurement period: the net return delivered to you has not justified the premium over alternatives that cost a fraction of 2% annually.
FY20 (COVID crash): PMS -24% versus benchmark -26% — a meaningful relative outperformance when markets fell sharply. FY26 (recent correction): PMS -8.28% versus benchmark -3.12% — a 5.16% relative underperformance.
Active management in small-cap heavy portfolios can protect on the way down in liquidity-driven crashes, but amplify losses in earnings-driven corrections or risk-off rotations away from smaller caps. FY26 appears to fall into the latter category. The downside protection record is mixed, not consistently positive.
If your portfolio is genuinely large-cap heavy with no dedicated small or mid-cap allocation, Blended Rangoli adds a differentiated return stream. The special situation mandates — Spin Off, HoldCo, DVD — capture events that most mutual funds underweight.
But if you already hold a small-cap fund, a flexi-cap fund, and a multi-cap fund — as many HNI portfolios do — the incremental portfolio contribution is weaker. You may be paying PMS fees for exposure you already have at lower cost elsewhere.
The seven-strategy blend framework is consistently described and appears executed without obvious style drift. The market-cap curve data shows active rebalancing — the small-cap allocation has moved from 53% in Dec’17 to as low as 33% in Dec’21 and back to 56% today. This is evidence of genuine active management, not passive label-holding.
The mandate is clear, the execution appears disciplined, and there is no evidence of momentum-chasing or benchmark-hugging. The concern is not mandate discipline — it is whether the mandate itself is generating net-of-fee alpha in the current environment.
Unifi Capital’s reporting structure is among the more thorough in the PMS industry: monthly MIS, quarterly investor reports and strategy newsletters, half-yearly performance webinars, and quarterly advance tax reporting. The fund manager profile is publicly accessible and clearly attributed.
Transparency does not guarantee returns. But it does mean you are not investing in a black box. The communication quality here earns genuine credit.
Unifi recommends a minimum 5-year investment horizon. The 5-year data shows the strategy has — barely — delivered alpha since inception on a net-of-fee basis. But the question of horizon suitability is not just about length — it is about when you started your horizon.
If you entered in 2017–2020, your horizon-adjusted case is strong. If you entered in 2022 or later, the 3-year data is the most relevant signal for your current tenure — and it shows negative alpha. Your horizon suitability depends entirely on your entry point, not just your intended holding period.
The market-cap curve data spanning Dec’17 to Apr’26 shows genuine, active utilisation of the multi-cap mandate. Allocations have shifted materially across large, mid, and small cap over time. This is not a static portfolio wearing a flexible label — the flexibility is being used.
Whether those shifts have consistently added value at each transition point is harder to verify without granular portfolio data. But the intent and execution of market-cap agnosticism appear genuine.
25–30 stocks, with top 15 holdings contributing ~75% of exposure, is a concentrated portfolio. For a strategy drawing from seven thematic sub-portfolios, this concentration makes conceptual sense — the “best of best” thesis requires conviction positions, not diluted exposure.
The risk is that concentration amplifies both upside and downside. In the years when Unifi’s special situation picks were right — FY21, FY22 — the concentration powered extraordinary returns. In FY26, the same concentration amplified the drawdown relative to the benchmark.
The Blended Rangoli strategy-specific AUM is approximately ₹11,765 crores. For a portfolio with 56% small-cap exposure, this is a meaningful number. Large AUM in small-cap strategies creates real constraints: entry and exit in thinly traded stocks becomes slower, more expensive, and more market-moving. The agility that makes small-cap active management valuable diminishes as the fund grows.
This is not unique to Blended Rangoli — it is a structural challenge for any successful small-cap-oriented PMS as AUM scales. But it is worth asking whether the strategy that generated alpha at a smaller AUM can replicate it at the current scale.
Mr E Prithvi Raj has managed Blended Rangoli with over 8 years of equity research and corporate finance experience. More importantly, the institutional structure at Unifi Capital — founded in 2001 with a stable founding team and 25 years of operational history — provides continuity beyond any individual. The strategy is embedded in an institutional framework, not dependent on a single person’s departure.
| Decision Factor | Rating |
| 1. Uniqueness vs Existing MF Portfolio | 🟡 Mixed |
| 2. Alpha Consistency Across All Periods | 🔴 Concern |
| 3. Justification for PMS Premium Fee | 🔴 Concern |
| 4. Downside Protection in Corrections | 🟡 Mixed |
| 5. Portfolio Complement for MF Investor | 🟡 Mixed |
| 6. Mandate Purity and Discipline | 🟢 Pass |
| 7. Fund Manager Transparency | 🟢 Pass |
| 8. Investment Horizon Suitability | 🟡 Mixed |
| 9. Market Cap Flexibility Utilisation | 🟢 Pass |
| 10. Concentration vs Diversification Balance | 🟡 Mixed |
| 11. AUM Size and Strategy Capacity | 🟡 Mixed |
| 12. Manager Tenure and Continuity Risk | 🟢 Pass |
Four Passes. Six Mixed. Two Concerns. The two Concerns are the ones that directly affect your bottom line: alpha consistency and fee justification.
Most HNI investors have never been asked this directly: is your PMS investment part of a deliberate portfolio architecture, or did it arrive as a product recommendation?
A well-structured portfolio is built in layers. The core — typically 70–80% of your equity allocation — is designed for reliable, low-cost market participation. Index funds, diversified flexi-cap funds, and multi-asset funds belong here. They compound efficiently over decades without the overhead of a 2% fee.
The satellite — the remaining 20–30% — is where you reach for genuine differentiation. This is where a PMS earns its place, but only when it accesses what your core portfolio structurally cannot: event-driven returns, promoter-conviction plays, de-merger opportunities, or strategies with barriers to mutual fund participation.
Blended Rangoli’s multi-cap structure and special situation mandates could legitimately occupy a satellite role — if, and only if, your core portfolio does not already replicate the exposure. The honest audit is simple: look at your flexi-cap and multi-cap mutual funds, then look at Blended Rangoli’s sector weights. How much overlap do you see? If the answer is “significant” — you are paying PMS fees for duplication, not diversification.
Without naming any specific strategy, here is what a satellite PMS allocation should deliver to justify its place and fee:
Use these as your benchmark when evaluating any PMS going forward — including this one, if you are considering whether to stay.
If the review above has prompted a serious exit conversation, here is what you need to know before acting.
Lock-in and Redemption
There is no regulatory lock-in period. A written redemption request to your Relationship Manager initiates an orderly liquidation of securities within 7 business days under normal market conditions. Net proceeds, after applicable charges, transfer to your registered bank account.
Tax Treatment
PMS investments are held at the stock level in your name. Profits are taxed as capital gains at applicable LTCG (12.5% for holdings above 12 months, above the ₹1.25 lakh exemption) or STCG (20% for holdings under 12 months) rates. Unlike mutual funds where the tax event is contained within the fund, a full PMS exit generates individual capital gain entries for each stock disposed of. This can be complex and potentially large — coordinate with your CA before acting.
Staggered Exit Strategy
If you have significant embedded gains, consider a phased exit spread across two or three financial years, particularly around the March 31 cut-off, to manage LTCG utilisation across tax years. Timing an exit to straddle year-ends can meaningfully reduce your effective tax burden.
Performance Fee Timing
If you are approaching the 5-year mark from your investment date, check whether a performance fee crystallisation is imminent. Exiting before a performance fee event — if the conditions for it are close to being met — may be financially significant. Your advisor should model this scenario for you.
Blended Rangoli has delivered meaningful alpha since its inception in June 2017. However, trailing performance on 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year periods (as of April 2026) has lagged the benchmark net of the 2% annual management fee. Whether it is “good” for you depends on your entry point, your existing portfolio composition, and your forward return expectations — not the since-inception number alone.
FY26: -8.28% (benchmark: -3.12%). FY25: +3% (benchmark: +6%). FY24: +38% (benchmark: +40%). Three consecutive financial years of negative alpha on a net-of-fee basis.
The management fee is 2.00% per annum, charged monthly on the daily portfolio value. Performance fees are applicable at the end of 5 years or upon achieving a 200% absolute return, whichever occurs first. There are no entry or exit loads for this open-ended structure.
On a 5-year trailing basis (as of April 2026), the strategy returned 13.61% net versus the benchmark’s 13.88%. A passive index fund tracking the same benchmark at approximately 0.15% cost would have delivered roughly 13.73% net. The value-add over passive has been marginal in the recent 5-year window. The comparison to active flexi-cap mutual funds at 1–1.5% total expense is similarly narrow.
The minimum investment is ₹50 Lakhs.
Submit a written redemption request to your Relationship Manager or at any Unifi branch. The Portfolio Manager initiates an orderly sale of securities within 7 business days under normal market conditions. There is no regulatory lock-in period. Note the tax implications and consider a staggered exit if you have significant embedded gains.
PMS investments are held at the stock level in your name. Profits are taxed as capital gains: STCG at 20% for holdings under 12 months, LTCG at 12.5% (above the ₹1.25 lakh annual exemption) for holdings above 12 months. Unlike mutual funds, the tax event occurs in your hands, not at the fund level. Staggered exits across financial years can help manage this efficiently.
PMS makes sense when it genuinely accesses what mutual funds structurally cannot — concentrated special situations, event-driven corporate actions, or strategies with structural barriers to mutual fund participation. When PMS simply replicates what diversified mutual funds already provide, the higher fee erodes the net advantage. The answer is always strategy-specific, portfolio-specific, and dependent on entry timing.
The Blended Rangoli strategy-specific AUM is approximately ₹11,765 crores as of April 2026. Total Unifi Capital AUM across all strategies is ₹19,635 crores.
This is a personal decision that depends on your entry date, embedded gains, tax position, existing portfolio exposure, and your honest assessment of the strategy’s forward potential. The data in this review gives you the inputs. Translating those inputs into a decision for your specific situation is exactly the kind of conversation that benefits from expert advice — where 360-degree wealth perspective with the planner is involved.
At Holistic Financial Services, we do not earn commissions from PMS products. Our interest is in building portfolios that work — not ones that look impressive on a product sheet. If you would like an honest second opinion on whether this PMS still belongs in your portfolio, we offer a complimentary portfolio review where we examine your complete picture, not just one product.
No agenda. No product to sell. Just clarity.
Listen to this article Quick Summary ✅ What Works ⚠️ What Doesn't Strong 1-month rebound…
Listen to this article Buying a home is often described as a milestone—but financially, it’s…
Listen to this article For anyone caught in the routine of deadlines, meetings, and endless…
Listen to this article For decades, retirement planning in India followed a predictable script. Work…
Listen to this article Why the most profitable financial decisions are made on quiet, unremarkable…
Listen to this article What if May 18 was genuinely the luckiest day of your…