Expense Ratio Rating
9 /10
Expense Rating
5 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$GADGX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 633 Allocation Total World funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- glnbx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
MFS Global New Discovery Fund Class B
Expenses: 2.26% (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 »
- pfdgx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
PFG Global Strategy Fund Class R
Expenses: 2.08% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- lstox
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Lazard Global Strategic Equity Portfolio Open Shares
Expenses: 1.29% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- jetax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Aberdeen Global Equity Impact Fund Class A
Expenses: 2.21% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- ggecx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Nationwide Global Sustainable Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- fcef
- ETF
- Allocation
- Total World
First Trust CEF Income Opportunity ETF
Expenses: 3.21% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- dabax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Delaware Global Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.44% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- raclx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Conductor Global Equity Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.69% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »