Expense Ratio Rating
7 /10
Expense Rating
3 /10
Market Score
2 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
2 /10
$DIVC Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- alvax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
American Beacon Large Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.01% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- oincx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
JPMorgan Equity Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.48% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hvoix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Hartford Quality Value Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.56% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hqiax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
The Hartford Equity Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- inutx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Columbia Dividend Opportunity Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.99% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- mdivx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BMO Dividend Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.65% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- gvezx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
GuideStone Funds Value Equity Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- trmvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
SEI Institutional Managed Trust Large Cap Value Fund Class F
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- rfda
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Value
RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF
Expenses: 0.52% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »