Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
8 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
8 /10
$TWADX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- alpax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
American Century Large Company Value Fund A Class
Expenses: 1.09% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- badix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BMO Dividend Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- ladix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
ClearBridge Tactical Dividend Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.93% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- npncx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Neuberger Berman Large Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.82% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- miisx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BNY Mellon Income Stock Fund Investor shares
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- leifx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Federated Equity Income Fund, Inc. Class A Shares
Expenses: 1.13% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- ffecx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Nuveen Dividend Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.86% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- uavax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
USAA Value Fund Adviser Shares
Expenses: 1.31% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dcgvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BNY Mellon Dynamic Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.68% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »