Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$TWOAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 748 Allocation All-In-One funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- amjcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
American Century Multi-Asset Income Fund C Class
Expenses: 1.66% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- htacx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Highland Total Return Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- iocax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
ICON Risk-Managed Balanced Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.45% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- dwafx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Arrow DWA Balanced Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.72% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- ioecx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
ICON Equity Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.99% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- apmax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Yorktown Master Allocation Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 1.37% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- plscx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
DWS Multi-Asset Moderate Allocation Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.45% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- ghtix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Leland Real Asset Opportunities Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.30% (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 »