Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
8 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
8 /10
$QGRCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 633 Allocation Total World funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- ivinx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Ivy Global Growth Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.37% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- jgvax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Janus Henderson Global Value Fund Class T
Expenses: 0.87% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- aset
- ETF
- Allocation
- Total World
FlexShares Real Assets Allocation Index Fund
Expenses: 0.57% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- rgoix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
RBC Global Opportunities Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- aqgnx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
AQR Global Equity Fund Class N
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- goat
- ETF
- Allocation
- Total World
VanEck Vectors Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF
Expenses: 0.56% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- epskx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
MainStay Epoch Global Equity Yield Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.85% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- wwoix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Virtus Vontobel Global Opportunities Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- abwax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
AB All Market Total Return Portfolio Class A
Expenses: 1.23% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »