Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$GSGCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- mviax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Praxis Value Index Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- tgdix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
TCW Relative Value Large Cap Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 0.74% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- wbiy
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Value
WBI Power Factor High Dividend ETF
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- jpltx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Janus Henderson Large Cap Value Fund Class T
Expenses: 0.77% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- cbbcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
AB Relative Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.64% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- bvefx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Becker Value Equity Fund Retail Class
Expenses: 0.78% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- bcegx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.77% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- eifvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Eaton Vance Focused Value Opportunities Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.80% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- wlcax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Wells Fargo Large Company Value Fund - Class A
Expenses: 0.83% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »