When investors do PMS comparison in India, they usually look for certainty in numbers.

They compare them the same way they would compare any other financial product. They look at returns, skim a few presentations, and try to narrow things down in a logical way.

It feels sensible, but it isn’t.

The issue is that PMS selection isn’t really a product comparison. It’s a delegation decision. Once capital is allocated, most of the important outcomes depend on how decisions are made later, not on how convincing the comparison looked at the start.

And a lot of selection mistakes begin right here. Not because investors miss information, but because they focus on the wrong parts of it.

To see where things usually go wrong, it helps to break these mistakes down.

Using Performance Tables As The Main Filter

This is the most common mistake, and it mostly happens early.

Investors line up PMS providers in India based on three-year or five-year returns and start eliminating names from the bottom. What survives the first cut often has more to do with timing than with quality.

Moreover, point-to-point returns show only where a PMS started and where it ended. Everything that happened in between gets ignored.

So:

  • Entry dates don’t show up. A PMS that started just before a bull run looks brilliant. 
  • Market cycles disappear. Whether returns came from a calm market or a volatile one isn’t visible.

  • Strategy style gets hidden. A cautious strategy can look “slow” simply because it avoids risk during a hot phase.

In short, the number looks decisive, but the story behind it is missing.

Mistaking Similar Outcomes For Similar Strategies

Two PMS strategies can end up with similar returns on paper. But the way they get there can feel very different for an investor.

One might swing a lot. Big ups, big drops.

Another might move slowly, with fewer shocks.

If an investor isn’t comfortable with sharp falls, the first one will feel stressful, even if the final return looks fine.

And the problem is that most investors realise this only after markets turn volatile. By then, the money is already invested.

Believing Presentations Reflect Real Behaviour

Most PMS presentations are designed to sound reasonable. That is the point.

Drawdowns are shown, but usually without much detail. Volatility is mentioned, but not described in practical terms. Investors are told what happened, not how often it happens or how long it lasts.

At first, it barely registers. Then a bad quarter comes along, and the gap becomes obvious.

Treating Size As A Proxy For Safety

Many investors feel safer choosing a large PMS because it looks established. More assets, bigger teams, and a well-known name create comfort.

But size doesn’t always work in the investor’s favour.

As a PMS grows, it can become harder to move quickly. Taking or exiting positions may take longer. The strategy may have to adjust just to handle the size of the money it manages. In some cases, keeping assets growing becomes a consideration alongside returns.

This doesn’t mean smaller PMS strategies are better. It just means that size by itself doesn’t tell you how a PMS will behave. Treating size as a proxy for safety replaces real evaluation with a sense of comfort.

Confusing Popularity With Suitability

A PMS that is widely discussed or frequently recommended often feels easier to choose. Social proof fills the gap where analysis should sit.

But founders and HNIs usually have more complicated financial situations. Their income can be uneven. A large part of their wealth may already be tied to one business or sector. Their need for liquidity can change without much notice.

A popular PMS doesn’t take any of this into account. Popularity just means the PMS is visible and frequently mentioned.

So relying on popularity fills the comfort gap, but it doesn’t solve the suitability problem.

Ignoring Survivorship Bias Completely

Most PMS comparisons only include strategies that still exist.

Underperforming strategies often shut down or stop being marketed. They disappear from comparison sets. What remains looks stronger than the full picture ever was.

It’s not something people usually call out while comparing options. Still, it ends up inflating confidence more than it should.

Comparing Inconsistent Data And Calling It Analysis

Another common issue is unstructured comparison.

One PMS might show returns from a bull market. Another from a mixed period.

One reports risk in one way. Another uses a different method.

One gives detailed disclosures. Another keeps things broad.

Investors think they are comparing PMS providers, but they are actually comparing inconsistent data.

This is the gap PMS AIF WORLD tries to address. It helps investors compare PMS strategies on consistent parameters, instead of piecing together mismatched information.

When everyone is viewed through the same lens, differences become clearer. Decisions get easier. And fewer assumptions slip through.

Wrapping Up

For investors doing a PMS comparison, the goal is simple. Understand how the strategy behaves, how decisions are explained, and whether that approach is something you can stay invested in when markets are not cooperative. 

That’s the thinking behind PMS AIF WORLD. Behaviour first, performance second.