Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
7 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
7 /10
$ABECX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- edow
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Value
First Trust Dow 30 Equal Weight ETF
Expenses: 0.50% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- aeyix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
American Century Equity Income Fund C Class
Expenses: 1.91% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- qdiv
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Global X S&P 500 Quality Dividend ETF
Expenses: 0.20% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hdgcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
The Hartford Dividend and Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.77% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- chdex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Cullen High Dividend Equity Fund Retail Class
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- fdstx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
AIG Focused Dividend Strategy Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.70% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- twqax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Transamerica Large Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.08% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- nbhax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Neuberger Berman Equity Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.06% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- mdfsx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Manning & Napier Disciplined Value Series Class S
Expenses: 0.82% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »