Compare 2 mutual fund factsheets professionally
Millions of people choose investment funds using an ad or a hunch. Compare 2 real mutual fund factsheets, use AI to decode the jargon — fees, benchmark, and risk rating — verify every number against the documents, and write a comparison a family member could understand. This is an analysis exercise, not personal financial advice.
Posted by The AI Internships
The work brief
- 01Pick 2 real funds in the same category (for example, two large-cap funds or an active fund vs. an index fund) and download current factsheets from the asset management companies’ official websites.
- 02Extract the numbers that matter: expense ratio, 1/3/5-year returns VS their benchmark, riskometer label, top 10 holdings, fund manager tenure, exit load.
- 03Compare honestly: after expenses, did either beat the benchmark? What do the holdings overlaps mean? Use AI to explain jargon, but verify every number against the factsheet itself.
- 04Write a one-page comparison for a family member: the tradeoffs, which option fits which stated priorities, and what the disclaimer "past performance…" actually implies.
What you’ll produce
Submission standard
Submit the factsheet link, your extraction table, and the family comparison. Every number must trace to the actual factsheets. Include your AI workflow: the jargon you had AI explain and what you verified against the documents. Add the official factsheet link for the second fund too, and tag each extracted number with the factsheet's as-of date so it can be checked against the fetched documents.
Link to one of the factsheets (name the other in your table)
Public linkRequiredThe extraction table: both funds’ expense ratio, returns vs. benchmark, risk, holdings, exit load
Both funds' expense ratio, returns vs benchmark, riskometer, holdings and exit load — tag each number with the factsheet's as-of date and page so it can be checked against the fetched documents.
Written responseRequiredThe family comparison: tradeoffs, reasoning, and honest caveats (not personal financial advice)
Written responseRequired
You’ll complete these inside your private workspace.
What you must submit as proof
This brief requires evidence an AI can’t fabricate.
Official link to the SECOND fund's factsheet
Must be the AMC's official factsheet so both funds' numbers are verifiable.
Public linkRequired
Submissions without this evidence cannot be submitted.
Protect other people in your proof. Blur faces, names, phone numbers and email addresses before you upload, and refer to anyone you worked with by role or number ("Listener 1", "the stall owner"). Your proof is only ever used to check your work — it is never published, never appears on your certificate, and is never shown in your public portfolio.
How your work is evaluated
The passing benchmark is 70/100.
Accurate extraction
29%The numbers are correctly pulled from real, current factsheets.
Benchmark honesty
29%Returns are compared against the benchmark, after expenses — the comparison that matters.
Responsible comparison
14%The comparison is reasoned, caveated, and free of guarantees or personal financial advice.
Numbers trace to fetched factsheets
29%Both funds link to official factsheets and every extracted figure (expense ratio, returns vs benchmark, riskometer, exit load) matches the current documents with an as-of date. Numbers that don't match the fetched sheets = fail.
How we grade your AI usage
Using AI is the point — it’s the skill this certificate proves. You’ll answer three short questions about how you used it: what you asked, what was wrong with its first answer, and what you changed. Specific, honest answers score high. “I pasted the brief and submitted the answer” scores near zero.