Diversification Rating
3 /10
Expense Ratio Rating
8 /10
Expense Rating
5 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$PFM Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- acgkx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Invesco Growth and Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.53% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- stvtx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Virtus Ceredex Large-Cap Value Equity Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- swdsx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Schwab Dividend Equity Fundâ¢
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- peizx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
PGIM Jennison Value Fund- Class Z
Expenses: 0.81% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- jheix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
John Hancock Funds II Equity Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.13% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- qdiv
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Global X S&P 500 Quality Dividend ETF
Expenses: 0.20% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- bpavx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Boston Partners All Cap Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dhlcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Diamond Hill Large Cap Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.72% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- balvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BMO Large-Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.79% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »