Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$BEDCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- jheix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
John Hancock Funds II Equity Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.13% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- tgdfx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
TCW Relative Value Dividend Appreciation Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.74% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- stvtx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Virtus Ceredex Large-Cap Value Equity 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 »
- swdsx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Schwab Dividend Equity Fundâ¢
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- peizx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
PGIM Jennison Value Fund- Class Z
Expenses: 0.81% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- bpavx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Boston Partners All Cap Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dhlcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Diamond Hill Large Cap Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.72% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- balvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BMO Large-Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.79% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pzfvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
John Hancock Classic Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.17% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »