Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$SDVCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- cvlex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Cullen Value Fund Retail Class
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- shxpx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
American Beacon Shapiro Equity Opportunities Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.17% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- gtmex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Glenmede Large Cap Value Portfolio
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- fakdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Kempner Multi-Cap Deep Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- cbecx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Wells Fargo C&B Large Cap Value Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.83% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- mgwax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Madison Large Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.16% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- pwdix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Power Dividend Index Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.27% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- zdivx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Zacks Dividend Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.30% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- lzfox
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Lazard Equity Franchise Portfolio Open Shares
Expenses: 1.18% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »