How Nyra Scores a PMS: The Methodology Behind the 7 Pillars

A score is only useful if it means the same thing every time you see it. If "7.4" for one PMS was arrived at differently than "7.4" for another, the number is decoration, not information. So before getting into the pillars themselves, it's worth being explicit about the design principle: Nyra applies the identical framework, the identical data points, and the identical weighting logic to every strategy it evaluates — a ₹50 crore boutique PMS and a large AMC's flagship fund are held to the same yardstick.

That consistency is also what makes the score useful for the second job it does: matching a strategy to you. Two investors can look at the same PMS and, depending on their risk appetite and horizon, come away with a different sense of fit — Nyra's underlying pillar-level data feeds that personalization, even though the headline score itself stays objective.

The starting point is still returns — but not a single cherry-picked number. Nyra looks at CAGR across multiple time horizons (1-year, 3-year, 5-year and since-inception where available), and measures it against the relevant benchmark rather than in isolation. A strategy that has quietly compounded ahead of its benchmark across cycles scores meaningfully higher here than one whose headline return came from a single concentrated bet that happened to work.

Raw returns without context can be misleading — a portfolio can generate high returns simply by taking on more risk. This pillar normalizes performance for the risk taken to get there, using measures like the Sharpe and Sortino ratios and volatility relative to peers. A PMS that delivers steadier, more efficient returns per unit of risk scores better than one that got to the same return number by swinging harder.

How a strategy behaves when markets fall usually says more about the manager than how it behaves when markets rise. Nyra evaluates maximum drawdown, the speed of recovery back to peak, and behavior during known stress periods (sharp corrections, sector-specific drawdowns). Capital preservation during rough patches is weighted heavily — it's often the difference between an investor staying invested through a cycle and exiting at the worst possible time.

A single great year is easy; doing it repeatably is not. This pillar looks at rolling-period performance — how often the strategy has beaten its benchmark across rolling 1-year and 3-year windows, not just point-to-point. A PMS with a high "batting average" against its benchmark across market cycles scores higher than one whose track record depends on a narrow, favorable window.

This is where Nyra's portfolio-analysis engine does its heaviest lifting. It examines sector and stock concentration, position sizing discipline, and — critically for anyone holding more than one PMS or AIF — overlap with commonly held strategies. A portfolio that is well-diversified by design, rather than accidentally concentrated in a handful of popular names, scores better. This pillar is also what powers Nyra's ability to flag hidden overlap across an investor's entire portfolio, not just within a single strategy.

Numbers alone don't capture whether a strategy is repeatable going forward. Nyra factors in the manager's and team's experience, the stability of the core investment team (has the person who built the track record actually stayed?), the clarity and consistency of the stated investment philosophy, and AUM growth patterns that suggest the strategy hasn't been forced to drift from its process to manage scale. A disciplined, well-articulated, consistently-applied process scores higher than one that shifts style opportunistically.

Returns are what an investor actually keeps after fees, not before them. This pillar evaluates the fee structure (fixed fee, hurdle rate, profit-sharing terms), exit loads, lock-in periods, and overall transparency of costs. Two strategies with similar gross performance can produce meaningfully different investor outcomes once fees and liquidity terms are accounted for — Nyra builds that difference into the score rather than treating it as fine print.

Each pillar is scored independently and then combined into the composite Nyra Score out of 10, using weights calibrated to what has historically mattered most to long-term PMS and AIF outcomes — performance and risk-adjusted metrics carry meaningful weight, but not so much that a strategy can compensate for poor downside protection or excessive concentration purely by having a strong return number. The goal isn't to reward the flashiest brochure; it's to surface strategies that hold up across the pillars that actually determine whether an investor's wealth compounds steadily over a full market cycle.

This is also why the Nyra Score updates rather than staying static. As new data comes in — a fresh quarter of performance, a change in the investment team, a shift in portfolio concentration — the score is recalculated. A strategy's score today reflects where it stands today, not where it stood when an investor first discovered it.

The number is useful, but the seven pillars underneath it are arguably more useful — they're what let an investor see why a strategy scored the way it did, and whether the specific pillars it scores well (or poorly) on line up with what actually matters for their own goals. An investor prioritizing capital preservation ahead of retirement will weight downside protection and consistency far more heavily than a growth-seeking investor seven years from any withdrawal need. Nyra's pillar-level breakdown is built to support exactly that kind of judgment, rather than asking every investor to trust one undifferentiated number.

Hard-earned wealth shouldn't rely on random advice — or on a brochure's best quarter. That's the reasoning a rigid, repeatable, seven-pillar methodology is designed to replace.

See how your own PMS or AIF scores. Get your free PMS Portfolio Health Report with Nyra →