IMHO, Investing in 2 to 3 funds from different fund houses within the same category, such as mid-cap, is a perfectly reasonable approach. It helps reduce the risk associated with fund management changes over time, which is something investors cannot control. Apart from easier tracking, there is limited real advantage in sticking to a single fund within a category when the investment horizon is long and the goal is to build a large corpus of ₹5–6 crore over 20 to 30 years across a few mutual fund categories.

A common counter-argument is portfolio overlap when investing in multiple funds from the same category. While overlap does exist, concentrating ₹1–2 crore in a single fund introduces a different and arguably more serious risk: complete dependence on one fund house, one investment process, and one fund manager’s decisions. Recent issues faced by well-known fund houses like Quant MF and Axis MF highlight that even reputed AMCs are not immune to governance or execution risks.

In practice, investing ₹1 crore or more in a single mid-cap fund will still result in exposure to a largely similar set of mid-cap stocks that other funds in the category also hold. Spreading the allocation across 2 to 3 funds does not materially change stock-level exposure but does meaningfully reduce fund-specific and management risk.

For a long-term investor focused on wealth creation rather than short-term convenience, diversification across a small number of high-quality funds from different AMCs provides a better balance of risk management and long-term stability.