Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
0 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
0 /10
$BRLCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 633 Allocation Total World funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- pgp
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
PIMCO Global StocksPLUS and Income Fund
Expenses: 2.64% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- ktrcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
DWS Global Income Builder Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.68% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- pugcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Putnam Global Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.90% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- sglix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
SGI Global Equity Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.84% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- revcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Columbia Global Equity Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.89% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- pgrcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
BNY Mellon Worldwide Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.89% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- glosx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Pioneer Global Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.16% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- acmtx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
AB All Market Real Return Portfolio Class C
Expenses: 2.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- mdegx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
BlackRock Long-Horizon Equity Fund Investor A Shares
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »