Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$AFAAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 748 Allocation All-In-One funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- pudax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
PGIM Real Assets Fund- Class A
Expenses: 0.85% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- clnax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Columbia Multi-Asset Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.91% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- hracx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Hartford Growth Allocation Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.32% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- exhax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Manning & Napier Pro-Blend Maximum Term Series Class S
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- tgpnx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
TCW Conservative Allocation Fund Class N
Expenses: 0.74% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- clerx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
AdvisorOne CLS Growth and Income Fund Class N
Expenses: 1.15% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- lagix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Ladenburg Aggressive Growth Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- hbafx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Rational Strategic Allocation Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- mbesx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
AMG GW&K Global Allocation Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.93% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »