Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$NNGCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- uavax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
USAA Value Fund Adviser Shares
Expenses: 1.31% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- ecstx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value 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 »
- hvosx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Hartford Quality Value Fund Class R4
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- term
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Value
EquityCompass Tactical Risk Manager ETF
Expenses: 0.73% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- eqnax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
MFS Equity Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- eqtix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Shelton Capital Management Core Value Fund Direct Shares
Expenses: 0.82% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- iedax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Voya Large Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dcgvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BNY Mellon Dynamic Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.68% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- lbwax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BrandywineGLOBAL - Diversified US Large Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- lfeix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Federated Equity Income Fund, Inc. Class F Shares
Expenses: 1.38% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- nbhcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Neuberger Berman Equity Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.81% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- tdfax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Transamerica Dividend Focused Class A
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- chvcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Cullen High Dividend Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.75% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pcpax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
PACE Large Co Value Equity Investments Class A
Expenses: 1.44% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- cvqtx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Columbia Disciplined Value Fund Class V
Expenses: 1.15% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- kdhcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
DWS CROCI Equity Dividend Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.73% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- rlcax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Columbia Disciplined Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.15% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- svlcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Columbia Select Large Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.55% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- tqmvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
T. Rowe Price QM U.S. Value Equity Fund
Expenses: 0.72% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »