Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
2 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
2 /10
$BRUSX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 197 US Stocks Small Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- sbvax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
ClearBridge Small Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.35% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- afdvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Applied Finance Explorer Fund Investor Shares
Expenses: 1.08% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- lfvax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Lord Abbett Focused Small Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.53% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- wpgtx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
WPG Partners Small/Micro Cap Value Fund
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- axvnx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Acclivity Small Cap Value Fund Class N
Expenses: 0.92% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- vsfcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Federated Clover Small Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.01% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pzsix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
PPM Small Cap Value Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pslbx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Putnam Small Cap Value Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.98% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hsmrx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Hartford Small Cap Value Fund Class R3
Expenses: 1.42% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »