Expense Ratio Rating
0 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$DDF Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- adecx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Columbia Large Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.76% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- bvefx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Becker Value Equity Fund Retail Class
Expenses: 0.78% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- cbbcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
AB Relative Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.64% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- olvcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
JPMorgan Large Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.44% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- bwlcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
American Beacon Bridgeway Large Cap Value Fund C Class
Expenses: 1.81% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- eifvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Eaton Vance Focused Value Opportunities Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.80% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- gcvax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Goldman Sachs Large Cap Value Insights Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- aclcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
American Century Value Fund C Class
Expenses: 2.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pneax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
AllianzGI Dividend Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.11% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »