Risk has been defined and measured in different ways by academicians and practitioners. The choice of proxy for risk measurement can have a direct and conclusive impact on investment decisions. The question that we aim to answer in the study is: Does the choice of risk-adjusted performance measure really make a difference in the ranking of equity portfolios? To approach the issue, we categorise risk-adjusted performance measures in four groups: Volatility Based Risk Measures; Sensitivity Based Risk Measures; Downside Risk Measures and Tail Risk Based Measures. We calculate values of all these risk-adjusted measures for 111 equity growth oriented mutual fund schemes spread across AMCs (Asset Management Companies) in India for a period of 10 years starting June 2005 to June 2015. We use Spearman’s and Kendall’s rank correlation and prepare a cross-sectional matrix to find out the extent of congruence among ranking of schemes according to all risk-adjusted measures. We find a substantial degree of positive and significant concordance among rankings obtained by equity portfolios on the basis of different for risk-adjusted measures with rank correlations ranging from 0.61 to 0.99. The results of the study indicate that the choice of risk-adjusted measure is broadly inconsequential to investment decisions in the context of Indian equity markets. The findings are relevant for retail and institutional investors, fund managers, market regulators and academicians.