Diversification Rating
2 /10
Expense Ratio Rating
8 /10
Expense Rating
7 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$USLB Alternatives
Different Funds
We found 8,161 US Stocks Mid-Cap Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- ehgax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Eaton Vance Hexavest Global Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.15% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- epvix
- Mutual Fund
- International Stocks
- Large Value
EuroPac International Value Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.50% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value International Stocks fund. See why »
- gtndx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Invesco Global Low Volatility Equity Yield Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.59% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- jolix
- Mutual Fund
- International Stocks
- Emerging Markets
Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Managed Volatility Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.16% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Emerging Markets International Stocks fund. See why »
- ignax
- Mutual Fund
- Sector Equity
- Basic Materials
Ivy Natural Resources Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.59% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Basic Materials Sector Equity fund. See why »
- aflex
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Anfield Universal Fixed Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.40% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ireax
- Mutual Fund
- Sector Equity
- Real Estate
Ivy LaSalle Global Real Estate Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.51% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Real Estate Sector Equity fund. See why »
- maltx
- Mutual Fund
- International Stocks
- Latin America Stock
BlackRock Latin America Fund, Inc. Institutional Shares
Expenses: 1.30% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Latin America Stock International Stocks fund. See why »