Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
2 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
2 /10
$JMCRX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 197 US Stocks Small Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- htscx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Hartford Small Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.04% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- husix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Huber Capital Small Cap Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.58% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dasvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Dunham Small Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- tvocx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Touchstone Small Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.13% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- nwucx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Nationwide U.S. Small Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.12% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dgsmx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
DGHM V2000 SmallCap Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.33% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- cusrx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Cullen Small Cap Value Fund Class Retail Class
Expenses: 1.25% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- ansix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Ancora Special Opportunity Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.73% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dcsvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Dunham Small Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.72% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »