Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
1 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$ASAMX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 748 Allocation All-In-One funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- pbcfx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
PGIM Income Builder Fund-Class B
Expenses: 1.60% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- pccfx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
PGIM Income Builder Fund-Class C
Expenses: 1.60% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- sbacx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Touchstone Balanced Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.78% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- wfmax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Wells Fargo Moderate Balanced Fund - Class A
Expenses: 1.12% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- ioezx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
ICON Equity Income Fund Class S
Expenses: 0.99% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- ostvx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Osterweis Strategic Investment Investment
Expenses: 1.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- aaccx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
American Century Strategic Allocation: Conservative Fund C Class
Expenses: 2.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- asiox
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
American Century Multi-Asset Real Return Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- pcbcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Pioneer Balanced ESG Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.75% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »