Expense Ratio Rating
6 /10
Expense Rating
3 /10
Market Score
2 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
2 /10
$LGWIX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 748 Allocation All-In-One funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- twoax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Two Oaks Diversified Growth & Income Class A Shares
Expenses: 1.69% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- rqiix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
RESQ Strategic Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- tgiax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Timothy Plan Growth & Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.65% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- tsgcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Timothy Plan Strategic Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.87% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- tpdcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Timothy Plan Defensive Strategies Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.16% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- lspcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
LoCorr Spectrum Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.77% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- apigx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Yorktown Capital Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.72% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- apifx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Yorktown Master Allocation Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.62% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- trifx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Catalyst/SMH Total Return Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.57% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »