Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
7 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
7 /10
$GLVNX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 633 Allocation Total World funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- peqbx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Putnam Global Equity Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.90% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- appix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Appleseed Fund Institutional Share
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- gpgox
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.57% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- pgp
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
PIMCO Global StocksPLUS and Income Fund
Expenses: 2.64% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- bnglx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
UBS Global Allocation Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- tvfvx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Third Avenue Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.40% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- aggcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Invesco Global Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- abwcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
AB All Market Total Return Portfolio Class C
Expenses: 1.71% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- thocx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Thornburg Global Opportunities Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.07% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »