Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$RDCCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- bvsix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Baywood Socially Responsible Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- peicx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
PGIM Jennison Value Fund- Class C
Expenses: 2.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hcmpx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
HCM Dividend Sector Plus Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 2.94% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pnbcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
AllianzGI Large-Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.87% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- arffx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Ariel Focus Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pbqix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
PGIM Jennison Value Fund- Class B
Expenses: 2.06% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- gsgcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Goldman Sachs Equity Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.85% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dnlvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Dunham Large Cap Value Fund Class N
Expenses: 1.14% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dtlvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Wilshire Large Company Value Portfolio Investment Class Shares
Expenses: 1.26% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »