Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
7 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
7 /10
$CCAPX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 633 Allocation Total World funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- ieacx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
AIG Income Explorer Fund Class C
Expenses: 0.73% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- ggscx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Goldman Sachs Growth Strategy Portfolio Class C
Expenses: 1.33% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- arsox
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Aristotle/Saul Global Equity Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.80% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- mctrx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
MainStay Income Builder Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.91% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- ibiax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Ivy Global Equity Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.24% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- kldw
- ETF
- Allocation
- Total World
Knowledge Leaders Developed World ETF
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- hrlix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Hartford Global Real Asset Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.99% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- bdhcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
BlackRock Dynamic High Income Portfolio Investor C
Expenses: 1.65% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- rwde
- ETF
- Allocation
- Total World
Direxion MSCI Developed Over Emerging Markets ETF
Expenses: 0.53% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »