Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
2 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
2 /10
$HNDDX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- pfaax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Pacific Funds Large-Cap Value Class A
Expenses: 1.02% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- zdivx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Zacks Dividend Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.30% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- fbpex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
FBP Equity & Dividend Plus Fund
Expenses: 1.07% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- nwgyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Nationwide Ziegler Equity Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.06% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dalvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Dunham Large Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.39% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- mvebx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Meritage Value Equity Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- afalx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Applied Finance Core Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.21% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- ecfvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Eaton Vance Focused Value Opportunities Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pjgcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
PGIM Jennison Focused Value Fund- Class C
Expenses: 1.85% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »