Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$JOGEX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 633 Allocation Total World funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- oargx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Oakmark Global Fund Service Class
Expenses: 1.41% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- esgyx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Mirova Global Sustainable Equity Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.96% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- foolx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
MFAM Global Opportunities Fund Investor Shares
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- amtax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
AB All Market Real Return Portfolio Class A
Expenses: 1.30% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- awacx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
AB Wealth Appreciation Strategy Class C
Expenses: 1.40% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- jri
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Nuveen Real Asset Income and Growth Fund
Expenses: 2.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- cgo
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Calamos Global Total Return Fund
Expenses: 3.42% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- chw
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund
Expenses: 3.41% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- jogix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
JOHCM Global Equity Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 1.06% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »