Expense Ratio Rating
0 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$CEXAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 197 US Stocks Small Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- fissx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Delaware Special Situations Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.32% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- gsctx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Goldman Sachs Small Cap Value Insights Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- tracx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
PGIM QMA Small-Cap Value Fund- Class C
Expenses: 1.92% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- axvix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Acclivity Small Cap Value Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.67% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- amvcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Columbia Small/Mid Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.98% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- fnk
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Small Value
First Trust Mid Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- drsvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Foundry Partners Fundamental Small Cap Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.32% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pcvcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
AllianzGI Small-Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.93% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- brsvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Bridgeway Small Cap Value Fund
Expenses: 0.94% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »