Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
8 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
8 /10
$ACMTX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 633 Allocation Total World funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- raax
- ETF
- Allocation
- Total World
VanEck Vectors Real Asset Allocation ETF
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- mdegx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
BlackRock Long-Horizon Equity Fund Investor A Shares
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- bnglx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
UBS Global Allocation Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- pgrcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
BNY Mellon Worldwide Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.89% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- fcgbx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Templeton Global Balanced Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.94% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- thocx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Thornburg Global Opportunities Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.07% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- aggcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Invesco Global Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- glosx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Pioneer Global Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.16% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- abwcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
AB All Market Total Return Portfolio Class C
Expenses: 1.71% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »