Expense Ratio Rating
8 /10
Expense Rating
5 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$FPURX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 748 Allocation All-In-One funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- iocax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
ICON Risk-Managed Balanced Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.45% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- dwafx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Arrow DWA Balanced Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.72% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- amjcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
American Century Multi-Asset Income Fund C Class
Expenses: 1.66% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- apmax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Yorktown Master Allocation Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 1.37% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- hndl
- ETF
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Strategy Shares Nasdaq 7 Handl Index ETF
Expenses: 1.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- hips
- ETF
- Allocation
- All-In-One
GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF
Expenses: 1.27% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- afaax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Yorktown Capital Income Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 1.47% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- tigix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Timothy Plan Growth & Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.40% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- plscx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
DWS Multi-Asset Moderate Allocation Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.45% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »