Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$FPRAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 633 Allocation Total World funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- lsggx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Loomis Sayles Global Growth Fund Class Y
Expenses: 1.01% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- ssgmx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
State Street Defensive Global Equity Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.79% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- deqcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
BNY Mellon Global Equity Income Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.91% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- hgxax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Hartford Global Impact Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- gicpx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Gabelli Global Growth Fund Class AAA
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- hmanx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Horizon Multi-Asset Income Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.09% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- mwobx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
MFS Global Growth Fund Class B
Expenses: 2.08% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- gggax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Gabelli Global Growth Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- fgilx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Fidelity® Global Equity Income Fund
Expenses: 1.08% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »