Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
3 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
3 /10
$RIMHX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- bhbfx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Madison Dividend Income Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hhdvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Hamlin High Dividend Equity Fund Investor Class Shares
Expenses: 1.17% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- maga
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Point Bridge GOP Stock Tracker ETF
Expenses: 0.72% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- bvpix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Baywood ValuePlus Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pfvdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Pacific Funds Large-Cap Value Advisor Class
Expenses: 0.77% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- eatvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.18% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- qblvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Federated MDT Large Cap Value Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.83% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- qclvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Federated MDT Large Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.77% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- gslax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Goldman Sachs Large Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.11% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »