One number to compare anything
CAGR — compound annual growth rate — answers the only question that makes investments comparable: what steady yearly rate would have produced this journey? A flat you sold, a fund you held, gold in the locker, your company’s revenue — different amounts, different holding periods, one honest yardstick.
The formula
CAGR = (Final value ÷ Initial value)^(1 ÷ years) − 1
Worked example: ₹1 lakh becoming ₹2 lakh in 5 years is a 100% absolute return — but 14.87% a year compounded. And ₹1 lakh becoming ₹4 lakh in 10 years? Also 14.87% — double the money in double the time is the same speed, which is exactly the insight absolute returns hide. It is the compound interest formula run backwards: put 14.87% back into a compounding calculation and ₹1 lakh dutifully becomes ₹2 lakh in 5 years.
The “300% returns!” decoder
Marketing loves absolute returns because time is invisible in them. “300% returns” over 10 years is 14.9% a year — good, not miraculous. Over 20 years it is 7.2% — an FD in a costume. Real-estate anecdotes are the classic case: the plot that “went 10×” since 2003 compounds out to about 11% a year — before maintenance, taxes and the years it could not be sold. Whenever a return is quoted without a time period, this page is the antidote: divide by time properly, through the power law, not with a ruler.
Where CAGR stops working
CAGR describes one lump invested once. The moment money drips in — a SIP, an RD, irregular top-ups — each instalment has its own holding period, and the before/after formula misprices the journey; the right tool there is XIRR, which your fund statement already computes. Two more honest caveats: CAGR is the smoothed path (a fund that did +40%, −25%, +20% shows a gentle curve it never actually lived), and it says nothing about money’s buying power — subtract inflation to see the real speed. A 12% CAGR in a 6%-inflation world is genuinely 5.7% a year.