Expense Ratio Rating
7 /10
Expense Rating
3 /10
Market Score
9 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
9 /10
$ACIIX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- oiepx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
JPMorgan Equity Income Fund Class R3
Expenses: 0.98% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- fisex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Franklin Equity Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.85% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- twqix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Transamerica Large Cap Value Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.77% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- mdbax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BlackRock Basic Value Fund Investor A Shares
Expenses: 0.81% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- sfvyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
ClearBridge All Cap Value Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.77% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- djd
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Invesco Dow Jones Industrial Average Dividend ETF
Expenses: 0.07% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- vgiix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
JPMorgan Growth And Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.68% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- msdvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BlackRock Equity Dividend Fund Service Shares
Expenses: 0.99% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- chdvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Cullen High Dividend Equity Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »