Expense Ratio Rating
8 /10
Expense Rating
6 /10
Market Score
7 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
7 /10
$FCFWX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 748 Allocation All-In-One funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- fldox
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Meeder Moderate Allocation Fund Retail Class
Expenses: 1.38% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- pdrex
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Putnam Dynamic Risk Allocation Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.15% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- qabgx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Federated MDT Balanced Fund Class A Shares
Expenses: 1.31% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- tcshx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Transamerica Multi-Asset Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.85% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- dbocx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
BNY Mellon Balanced Opportunity Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- javax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
James Aggressive Allocation Fund
Expenses: 0.98% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- pfdbx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
PFG Balanced Strategy Fund Class R
Expenses: 2.01% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- fbpbx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
FBP Appreciation & Income Opportunities Fund
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- rncix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
RiverNorth Core Opportunity Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »