Yatırımcı.AI

BNA vs NHA Fund Comparison

Price, period returns, size, investor count and risk score of BNA (BNP Paribas Cardif Emeklilik A.Ş. Altın Emeklilik Yatırım Fonu) and NHA (Zurich Yaşam ve Emeklilik A.Ş. Altın Emeklilik Yatırım Fonu) side by side.

BNANHA
StockFund

If You Had Invested TRY 10,000

Metric Comparison

BNA vs NHA Fund Comparison
MetricBNANHACategory median
Daily−2.44%−2.49%−2.39%
1 week−3.29%−3.38%−3.12%
1 month−3.57%−3.61%−3.42%
3 months−5.77%−5.91%−5.68%
6 months−6.96%−7.27%−7.28%
YTD3.16%2.70%2.10%
1 year10.63%9.12%8.52%
3 years257.09%249.48%236.67%
Returns are based on prices as of November 13, 2026; the fund with the higher return or the lower risk score counts as the leader.

Popular Comparisons

Popular Fund Comparisons

Related Pages

About the BNA vs NHA Comparison

The price, returns, size and risk of BNA (BNP Paribas Cardif Emeklilik A.Ş. Altın Emeklilik Yatırım Fonu) and NHA (Zurich Yaşam ve Emeklilik A.Ş. Altın Emeklilik Yatırım Fonu) are compared side by side as of November 13, 2026. Of the 11 metrics compared, BNA leads in 9 and NHA leads in 2. BNA is a Gold Fund fund managed by BNP Paribas Cardif Emeklilik A.Ş.; NHA is a Gold Fund fund managed by NN Hayat ve Emeklilik A.Ş..

Highlights: Daily: BNA leads (−2.44% vs −2.49%). 1 week: BNA leads (−3.29% vs −3.38%). 1 month: BNA leads (−3.57% vs −3.61%). 3 months: BNA leads (−5.77% vs −5.91%). 6 months: BNA leads (−6.96% vs −7.27%). YTD: BNA leads (3.16% vs 2.70%). 1 year: BNA leads (10.63% vs 9.12%). 3 years: BNA leads (257.09% vs 249.48%). Size (TRY): NHA leads (20.9B vs 15.3B). Investors: BNA leads (150,667 vs 116,869). Risk: NHA leads (6 vs 7).

Frequently Asked Questions

Year to date BNA returned 3.16% and NHA returned 2.70%; over the last year BNA returned 10.63% and NHA returned 9.12%. Over the last month BNA returned −3.57% and NHA returned −3.61%. Past performance does not indicate future returns.

As of November 13, 2026, BNA has a size of TRY 15.3B with 150,667 investors, while NHA has a size of TRY 20.9B with 116,869 investors. NHA leads in size and BNA leads in investor count.

The CMB risk score of BNA is 7 out of 7 and that of NHA is 6. The risk score reflects the historical volatility of the fund price; 1 is the lowest and 7 the highest risk. A lower score means less volatility, not a guarantee of higher returns.