Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
5 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
5 /10
$RLCAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- 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 »
- hdctx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Rational Equity Armor Fund Institutional
Expenses: 1.00% (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 »
- sfvax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
AIG Strategic Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.45% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- eqnbx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
MFS Equity Income Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.64% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hrsvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Heartland Select Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.25% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hadux
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Horizon Active Dividend Fund Advisor Class
Expenses: 1.24% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- wflvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Wells Fargo Large Company Value Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.58% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- fadvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Frost Value Equity Fund Investor Class Shares
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »