Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
3 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
3 /10
$CBEAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- tgdvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
TCW Relative Value Large Cap Fund Class N
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- suvax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
PGIM QMA Large-Cap Value 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 »
- rdccx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Columbia Disciplined Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.90% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- mylvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Madison Large Cap Value Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.91% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- iedcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Voya Large Cap 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 »
- gilcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Guggenheim Large Cap Value Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pfpfx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Poplar Forest Partners 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 »
- jivcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
JPMorgan Intrepid Value Fund Class C Shares
Expenses: 1.32% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- rimhx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
City National Rochdale Dividend & Income Fund Class N
Expenses: 1.16% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »