Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$TCVCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 748 Allocation All-In-One funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- hips
- ETF
- Allocation
- All-In-One
GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF
Expenses: 1.27% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- afaax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Yorktown Capital Income Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 1.47% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- tigix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Timothy Plan Growth & Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.40% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- orlcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
North Square Multi Strategy Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.78% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- twoax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Two Oaks Diversified Growth & Income Class A Shares
Expenses: 1.69% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- rqiix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
RESQ Strategic Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- asiux
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
American Century Multi-Asset Real Return Fund R Class
Expenses: 1.39% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- ghtax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Leland Real Asset Opportunities Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.55% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- conwx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Concorde Wealth Management Fund
Expenses: 1.68% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »