Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
0 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
0 /10
$SVTIX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- 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 »
- cvcfx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Pioneer Disciplined Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.92% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hcmnx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
HCM Dividend Sector Plus Fund Class A
Expenses: 2.19% (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 »
- hwcax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Hotchkis & Wiley Diversified Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.08% (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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »