Expense Ratio Rating
6 /10
Expense Rating
1 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$GILCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- dhqix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Day Hagan Logix Smart Value Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.30% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- neamx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Neiman Large Cap Value Fund A Shares
Expenses: 1.45% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- nwghx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Nationwide Diamond Hill Large Cap Concentrated Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.18% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- nqcax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Nuveen NWQ Large Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.27% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- afadx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Applied Finance Dividend Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- neimx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Neiman Large Cap Value Fund No-Load Shares
Expenses: 1.45% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dhqax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Day Hagan Logix Smart Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.55% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- tveax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Guggenheim RBP® Dividend Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- sfvtx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
AIG Strategic Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »