Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
8 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
8 /10
$ACGCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- hwcax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Hotchkis & Wiley Diversified 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 »
- hcmpx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
HCM Dividend Sector Plus Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 2.94% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dtlvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Wilshire Large Company Value Portfolio Investment Class Shares
Expenses: 1.26% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- wflvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Wells Fargo Large Company Value Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.58% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hadux
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Horizon Active Dividend Fund Advisor Class
Expenses: 1.24% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- eqnbx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
MFS Equity Income Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.64% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- sfvax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
AIG Strategic Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.45% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- tveix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Guggenheim RBP® Dividend Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- eqncx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
MFS Equity Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.64% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »