The direct and regular plans of a scheme hold one portfolio, and the only difference between them is a commission you never approve
The short answer
A direct plan and a regular plan are two plans of one scheme: same securities, same weights, same manager, same trades. The entire difference is the distribution commission, which SEBI requires to be paid out of the scheme rather than the fund house's books, charged as commission, and reflected in the expense ratio differential between the two plans. It is accrued daily and removed before the net asset value is published, so it never becomes a line item on anything you approve. On a differential of 0.65 percentage points, the reported equity average, the regular plan reaches roughly 89 percent of whatever the direct plan reaches over twenty years, almost regardless of what the market does. Illustrative.
Most writing on this subject frames it as a service tier: the basic version and the assisted version, at two prices. That is wrong in a specific and checkable way. There is one product, one portfolio, one manager, one mandate. What is priced differently is not the investment. It is the route by which you arrived.
And the payment for that route has an unusual property. It is not billed. It is subtracted from the pool before the pool is valued, so the investor is never looking at a number and deciding whether it is worth it. The decision is made once, at purchase, and renewed automatically every day for as long as the holding exists.
Two plans of one scheme, and what that phrase commits
SEBI required every scheme to offer a direct plan from 1 January 2013, with its own net asset value and an expense ratio excluding distribution expenses and commission. The wording matters. A plan is not a scheme. Two plans of one scheme share the securities, the manager, the objective, the benchmark and every trade the fund does. They are not two funds that happen to be similar. They are two pricing classes over one asset pool.
This is why the comparison is unusually clean. In most cost comparisons the cheaper option differs in some other respect too, leaving the reader weighing incommensurable things. Here nothing else differs. Hold the direct plan while your neighbour holds the regular plan of the same scheme and you own the identical basket, yet each day you see a different value for it.
| Element | Direct plan | Regular plan |
|---|---|---|
| Securities held and their weights | Identical. One portfolio, not two. | |
| Fund manager and mandate | Same person, same objective, same benchmark | |
| Portfolio transactions | One set of trades for the whole scheme | |
| Distribution commission in the expense ratio | Not permitted | Present, by design |
| Expense ratio | Lower, by that commission | Higher, by that commission |
| Net asset value | Published separately, daily | Published separately, daily |
| Paid out of your assets | The fund house, and statutory charges | The same, plus a distributor |
The gap is the commission, and that is a rule not an estimate
It would be reasonable to assume the two ratios are set independently and differ by roughly what distribution costs. They are not. SEBI's October 2018 framework closed that loop. All scheme-related expenses, commission included, must be paid from the scheme and not from the books of the asset management company, its sponsor, trustee, associates or any other entity by any route. The commission must be charged to the scheme as commission. And it must be accounted for in the expense ratio differential between the two plans.
Read together, those three requirements convert the differential from an approximation into a measurement. Before it, a fund house could absorb part of a commission on its own books, making the published differential understate what distribution cost. Closing that route is why the gap can be read as the thing itself.
That hands an investor an instrument they are rarely told they hold. Subtract the direct plan's expense ratio from the regular plan's, same scheme, same date, and you have the annual rate at which your distribution channel is paid out of your money. Both numbers are published and neither needs anyone's cooperation. Reported averages run around 0.65 percentage points for equity and 0.35 for debt, but a category average is a poor substitute for the two numbers on the scheme you hold.
Taken daily, inside the number you are shown
The expense ratio is not billed annually. It is accrued every day: the annual rate divided by 365, applied to net assets, deducted before that day's net asset value is computed. By the time a figure exists to publish, every component has been removed. This is ordinary practice and nothing about it is improper. The consequence is specific.
On a balance of ten lakh rupees, a differential of 0.65 percentage points is about seventeen rupees and eighty paise a day. Nobody notices seventeen rupees. It is six thousand five hundred over a year, which most people would notice a great deal as an invoice. The mechanism is not deceptive. It is structured so the amount never presents itself at a size, or in a format, that triggers a decision.
For an investor buying through a systematic investment plan, every instalment buys units at that day's published value, already net of the drag. The gap is not applied to the instalment. It is applied to the whole accumulated balance, daily, including the part built from instalments made years earlier. The mechanics of how a scheme is priced and valued is the prerequisite for the rest of this page.
Why the gap compounds, and why it barely depends on the return
A fixed annual percentage sounds like a linear cost. It is not, because it is levied on a balance that itself compounds. The amount taken in year twenty exceeds the amount taken in year one for two reasons at once: the balance is bigger, and it is bigger only because of years of growth on which the drag has already been paid. What is lost is not the fee. It is the fee plus everything the fee would have earned.
There is a property here almost no competing page states, and it is why this arithmetic can be shown honestly. The ratio between the two terminal values is very nearly independent of the market. Both plans grow on the same portfolio and differ by a constant annual subtraction, so the proportion the regular plan keeps is set almost entirely by the size of the gap and the length of the holding, not by what prices do.
| Annual expense gap | 10 years | 20 years | 30 years |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.35 points, typical of debt schemes | 9,68,600 | 9,38,300 | 9,08,800 |
| 0.65 points, the reported equity average | 9,42,500 | 8,88,200 | 8,37,100 |
| 1.00 point | 9,12,700 | 8,33,100 | 7,60,400 |
| 1.20 points | 8,96,100 | 8,03,000 | 7,19,600 |
| Assumed annual growth of the portfolio | Share the regular plan keeps | Shortfall |
|---|---|---|
| 4 percent | 88.2 percent | 11.8 percent |
| 8 percent | 88.6 percent | 11.4 percent |
| 12 percent | 89.0 percent | 11.0 percent |
| 16 percent | 89.4 percent | 10.6 percent |
Swing the growth assumption across twelve percentage points and the twenty-year shortfall moves by about one. That is the useful part. An investor cannot know what the portfolio will do, but can know, close enough to act on, what proportion of it the commission will take.
What the trail actually pays for, and what ends it
Until October 2018 a distributor could be paid a large amount at the point of sale. SEBI banned upfront commission and required a full trail model, in which the distributor is paid an annual rate on assets held under their code, with upfronting permitted only for systematic instalments. The reason was explicit: an upfront payment rewards the transaction, so it rewards moving investors between schemes, which is what several distributors were doing.
The trail model is a genuine improvement, aligning the distributor with the holding continuing rather than being replaced. Worth saying plainly, because what follows is critical and should not be read as a claim that nothing was fixed.
What the trail model does not do is make the payment conditional. The rate does not fall if no advice is given, or if the distributor has not been in contact for four years, or if the scheme was chosen once in 2019 and never revisited. A distributor who spends two hours a quarter on your portfolio and one who has forgotten your name are paid the identical rate out of the identical pool.
It also leaves a structural asymmetry no amount of good faith removes. Of the things you might do with a holding, exactly one ends the payment without ending the investment: moving to the direct plan of the same scheme. The portfolio stays the same and the only change is that a payment stops. That is not a recommendation a person paid by the trail can be expected to make, and the point is not that they are dishonest. It is that the structure never asks them to.
The April 2026 unbundling moved the headline, not the commission
The SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations 2026, approved in December 2025 and effective 1 April 2026, replaced a framework standing since 1996. On costs the central change was to unbundle the total expense ratio. A base expense ratio now covers what the fund house charges for managing the money. Brokerage and transaction costs sit separately within revised caps, the cash market cap roughly halved to about six basis points and derivatives to about two. Statutory and regulatory levies are charged on actuals, above the base limit.
Reporting has concentrated on headline ratios rising. The more useful observation is arithmetical. Brokerage and levies arise from portfolio transactions, and both plans share one portfolio, so the separated items add a similar absolute amount to each plan's ratio. The difference between the two is therefore very nearly untouched. Both headline numbers move; the commission does not.
Two things follow, and both cut against how the change is usually described. First, comparisons expressed as percentages become less informative: a direct plan's smaller base means the same absolute addition is a larger proportional increase, so a claim that a direct plan is some percentage cheaper degrades even though the rupee commission is unchanged. Second, the unbundling makes the commission easier to isolate, because the base expense ratio strips out what was blurring the comparison. The differential survives intact, as you would expect of a figure fixed by a separate rule.
It is disclosed. Twice. After the fact, and never for approval.
The commission is not hidden. It has been disclosed for years. The criticism is about when, and in what posture.
| Disclosure | What it shows | Timing | Seeks your agreement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published expense ratios for each plan | The annual rate per plan; the differential is a subtraction | Ongoing | No |
| Scheme disclosures, from December 2024 | Recurring expenses, half-yearly returns and yields, separately per plan | Half-yearly | No |
| Consolidated Account Statement, from October 2016 | Gross commission paid to distributors, in rupees, against your holdings | Half-yearly, after payment | No |
| Your transaction confirmations | Nothing. The commission is not a line on them. | Not applicable | No |
| An invoice you receive and settle | Does not exist for a regular plan | ||
The Consolidated Account Statement line is the one to find, because it is the only place the amount appears in rupees rather than as a rate. It is half-yearly, issued after the period it describes, and reports money already gone. Reading it is the most clarifying thing a regular plan investor can do, and almost nobody does, because nothing requires it.
The case for the regular plan, stated properly
An article that ends here has argued badly, because it has compared two plans held identically. Nobody holds a plan identically. The comparison that decides outcomes is what each investor does, and on that comparison the direct plan is not automatically ahead.
A gap of 0.65 percentage points a year costs roughly eleven percent of terminal value over twenty years. One redemption in the worst week of a severe drawdown, and a return to the market years later at a higher level, can cost more than that in a single decision. If a relationship prevents that once in a lifetime, it has paid for itself several times over, and no arithmetic on expense ratios will show it. Selection, rebalancing, documentation, nomination and transmission are real work too, and in a direct plan the person doing it is you.
So the objection is not that the commission is unearned. It is that it is unconditional, and that the choice is presented as binary when it is not. Indian regulation already separates the two roles. A distributor is paid trail commission out of the scheme, scaling with your balance without limit and continuing whether or not anyone is in contact. An investment adviser registered with the regulator charges a fee you agree, see, and can stop. The 2020 amendments require client-level segregation at group level, so the same client is either an advisory client or a distribution client, never both. A direct plan paired with a fee you approve is the combination that makes the payment visible.
That is the test worth applying, and it is one question. If the commission arrived as an annual invoice, in rupees, for the amount the Consolidated Account Statement shows, would you pay it? If yes, the regular plan is a fair trade honestly made and there is nothing further to decide. If the answer changes the moment the number becomes visible, the mechanism was doing the work, not the service.
What a switch actually costs, and when it is not worth it
Moving an existing holding from the regular plan to the direct plan of the same scheme is not a relabelling. It is a redemption of one set of units and a fresh purchase of another. Any exit load still running is charged, the holding period resets, and the disposal is a disposal for capital gains purposes with all that follows.
That changes the calculation in a way the enthusiastic version of the direct plan argument skips. The gap accrues forward from the switch date, on the balance that survives it, so a holding two years from a goal is a different case from one thirty years out. New money is easy because there is nothing to unwind. Existing money is an arithmetic problem with real frictions on one side, to be computed rather than assumed. Owning the same stocks twice across several schemes is a separate and often larger leak, and the method for finding it is in the guide to portfolio overlap between schemes.
What the choice is actually between
Strip the marketing off both sides and the decision is narrow. The investment, the manager and the risk are the same. The only question is whether you are also buying a relationship, at a price fixed as a share of everything you will ever accumulate, payable daily, without a bill. For some that is a sound purchase, and saying otherwise would be dishonest. For others it continues long after the service behind it stopped, and they have never been shown a figure large enough to prompt the question. The mechanism charges both the identical rate.
What separates them is not the plan they chose. It is whether they can read the two expense ratios, subtract one from the other, find the rupee figure on the half-yearly statement, and decide on purpose. A fifteen minute exercise on published numbers, and the thing that separates an investor making decisions from one having decisions made around them.
Frequently asked questions
Are the portfolios of a direct plan and a regular plan actually identical?
Yes. They are two plans of one scheme, not two schemes: one portfolio, one manager, one mandate, one set of trades. Units of each plan are claims on the same pool. Each plan carries its own net asset value precisely because the expense charged against that common pool differs, and that difference is the distribution commission.
Is the difference in expense ratio exactly the commission?
By rule it is very nearly so. SEBI requires that scheme-related expenses including commission be paid from the scheme and not from the books of the asset management company or any associated entity, that commission be charged to the scheme as commission, and that it be accounted for in computing the expense ratio differential between the two plans. The differential is the commission and the tax on it, not a free pricing decision.
How large is the gap in practice?
Published comparisons across several hundred Indian schemes put the average differential at roughly 0.65 percentage points a year for equity and 0.35 for debt, with gaps above one percentage point not unusual in actively managed equity categories. Take the two published figures for your own scheme rather than a category average.
Why does a small annual gap matter so much over time?
Because it is charged on the balance, not the contribution. Each year the drag applies to a pool that already reflects every prior year of drag, so the shortfall grows as a proportion rather than staying fixed. On a gap of 0.65 percentage points the regular plan reaches roughly 94 percent of whatever the direct plan reaches over ten years, 89 percent over twenty and 84 percent over thirty. Illustrative proportions, not projections.
Does that calculation assume a particular rate of growth?
Barely. The ratio between the two terminal values is close to independent of the growth assumption, because both plans grow on the same portfolio and differ by a constant annual subtraction. Moving assumed growth across a very wide band changes the twenty-year shortfall by about one percentage point. That is why the proportional framing is honest where a rupee projection would not be.
Is the commission disclosed anywhere?
In two places, both after the fact. Since October 2016 the half-yearly Consolidated Account Statement must show gross commission paid to distributors in absolute rupee terms against your holdings in each scheme. Since December 2024 scheme disclosures must state recurring expenses, half-yearly returns and yields separately per plan. Neither is a bill, neither precedes the charge, and neither asks your agreement.
What did the April 2026 expense framework change?
The SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations 2026, approved December 2025 and effective 1 April 2026, unbundled the total expense ratio into a base expense ratio for management, plus brokerage and transaction costs within revised caps, plus statutory and regulatory levies on actuals. Because the added items arise from one shared portfolio, they raise both headline ratios by a similar absolute amount and leave the commission differential where it was.
Does a trail commission give a distributor a reason to keep me invested?
It gives them a reason to keep your balance under their code, which is not quite the same thing. Since the October 2018 ban on upfront commission the model is trail only, an annual rate on assets, so churning for a one-off payment no longer pays. What remains is that the payment continues whether or not advice is given, and the one action ending it, moving to the direct plan of the same scheme, is the one the recipient has no reason to suggest.
Is a direct plan always the better choice?
No. The comparison that matters is not two plans held identically, it is what each investor actually does. A relationship that prevents one panicked redemption in a severe drawdown can be worth more than the whole commission over a long horizon. The honest criticism is not that the commission is unearned. It is that it is unconditional.
What happens if I move an existing regular plan holding to direct?
It is a redemption of regular plan units and a fresh purchase of direct plan units, not a relabelling. That resets the holding period for exit load and capital gains purposes, and any exit load still running is charged. The economics depend on how long you have held, how long you intend to hold, and the size of the gap. Compute them before acting.
Stated as at 19 September 2026. The expense framework changed from 1 April 2026 and the published ratios of both plans moved as a result, so figures in older material should be treated as out of date. Every number in the worked examples is illustrative and is a proportion rather than a projection; nothing here forecasts what any scheme will produce. Take the two current expense ratios for your own scheme rather than a category average, and take advice on your own facts.
Ready to go deeper than this article?
Bharath Shiksha is a 90-volume curriculum across 6 stages, from chart reading at ₹14,999 through capital raising, or the full bundle at ₹1,49,999. Cost is taught here as an instrument read from published numbers, because the difference between two plans of one scheme is a figure anyone can compute and almost nobody does.
Take the free diagnostic →