Expense Ratio Rating
6 /10
Expense Rating
2 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$JIVAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- hvocx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Hartford Quality Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.67% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- mgwax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Madison Large Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.16% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- shxpx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
American Beacon Shapiro Equity Opportunities Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.17% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- suvcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
PGIM QMA Large-Cap Value Fund- Class C
Expenses: 2.13% (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 »
- lzfox
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Lazard Equity Franchise Portfolio Open Shares
Expenses: 1.18% (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 »
- 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 »