Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$CANGX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 748 Allocation All-In-One funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- ioecx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
ICON Equity Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.99% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- lspix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
LoCorr Spectrum Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.77% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- tigix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Timothy Plan Growth & Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.40% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- lspax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
LoCorr Spectrum Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 2.02% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- twoax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Two Oaks Diversified Growth & Income Class A Shares
Expenses: 1.69% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- rqiix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
RESQ Strategic Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- tcvcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Timothy Plan Conservative Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.83% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- asiux
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
American Century Multi-Asset Real Return Fund R Class
Expenses: 1.39% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- ghtax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Leland Real Asset Opportunities Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.55% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »