Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$OIEIX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- 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 »