Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
8 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
8 /10
$EPSKX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 633 Allocation Total World funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- chusx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Alger Global Focus Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.42% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- gndcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Invesco Global Low Volatility Equity Yield Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.34% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- gllax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Aberdeen Global Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.53% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- dacfx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
AlphaSimplex Multi-Asset Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.90% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- sfgcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Guggenheim World Equity Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- caxcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Catalyst/MAP Global Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.03% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- glbix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Leuthold Global Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 1.63% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- glblx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Leuthold Global Fund Class Retail
Expenses: 1.88% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- glncx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
MFS Global New Discovery Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.26% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »