Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
8 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
8 /10
$ACLAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 178 US Stocks Mid-Cap Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- abasx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Mid-Cap Value
AB Discovery Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.12% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Mid-Cap Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- fcmvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Mid-Cap Value
Fidelity® Mid Cap Value K6 Fund
Expenses: 0.44% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Mid-Cap Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- lavlx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Mid-Cap Value
Lord Abbett Mid Cap Stock Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.98% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Mid-Cap Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- apdqx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Mid-Cap Value
Artisan Mid Cap Value Fund Advisor Class
Expenses: 1.06% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Mid-Cap Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- jcmvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Mid-Cap Value
JPMorgan Mid Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.73% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Mid-Cap Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hmvjx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Mid-Cap Value
Hartford MidCap Value Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Mid-Cap Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- frbsx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Mid-Cap Value
Franklin Mutual U.S. Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Mid-Cap Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pqnax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Mid-Cap Value
AllianzGI Mid-Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.99% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Mid-Cap Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- vevcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Mid-Cap Value
Victory Sycamore Established Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.68% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Mid-Cap Value US Stocks fund. See why »