Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$ADEIX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- gtmex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Glenmede Large Cap Value Portfolio
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- fakdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Kempner Multi-Cap Deep Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- suvbx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
PGIM QMA Large-Cap Value Fund- Class B
Expenses: 2.07% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hvocx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Hartford Quality Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.67% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- mgwax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Madison Large Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.16% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hflgx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Hennessy Cornerstone Large Growth Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.29% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »