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.
- mvebx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Meritage Value Equity Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hcmax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Hillman Value Fund No Load Shares
Expenses: 1.50% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- ecfvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Eaton Vance Focused Value Opportunities Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pjgcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
PGIM Jennison Focused Value Fund- Class C
Expenses: 1.85% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dhqix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Day Hagan Logix Smart Value Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.30% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hdcax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Rational Equity Armor Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.25% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pjibx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
PGIM Jennison Focused Value Fund- Class B
Expenses: 2.03% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hulix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Huber Capital Equity Income Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.34% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pwdax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Power Dividend Index Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.52% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »