Expense Ratio Rating
10 /10
Expense Rating
9 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$VMVAX Alternatives
Different Funds
We found 8,182 US Stocks Mid-Cap Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- jta
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Nuveen Tax-Advantaged Total Return Strategy Fund
Expenses: 2.66% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- vlaax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Value Line Asset Allocation Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.08% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- mmhcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
MFS Municipal High Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.66% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- rmucx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Invesco Oppenheimer Rochester New York Municipals Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.67% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- psi
- ETF
- Sector Equity
- Technology
Invesco Dynamic Semiconductors ETF
Expenses: 0.58% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Technology Sector Equity fund. See why »
- pthax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.84% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- qimnx
- Mutual Fund
- International Stocks
- Large Blend
AQR TM International Multi-Style Fund Class N
Expenses: 0.85% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend International Stocks fund. See why »
- pwlex
- Mutual Fund
- Alternatives
- Short
PIMCO RAE Worldwide Long/Short PLUS Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.34% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Short Alternatives fund. See why »
- rndlx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Total US Bond Market
RiverNorth Doubleline Strategic Income Fund Class R
Expenses: 1.11% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total US Bond Market Bond fund. See why »
- msflx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc. Global Franchise Portfolio Class L
Expenses: 1.69% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- angcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Total US Bond Market
Angel Oak Multi-Strategy Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.11% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total US Bond Market Bond fund. See why »
- aahyx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Thrivent Diversified Income Plus Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.96% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- msopx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Total World
Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc. Global Opportunity Portfolio Class C
Expenses: 1.94% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Total World Allocation fund. See why »
- mtlbx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.42% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- otbax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
JPMorgan Municipal Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ogig
- ETF
- Sector Equity
- Technology
O'Shares Global Internet Giants ETF
Expenses: 0.48% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Technology Sector Equity fund. See why »
- aemvx
- Mutual Fund
- International Stocks
- Emerging Markets
Acadian Emerging Markets Portfolio Class Y
Expenses: 1.25% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Emerging Markets International Stocks fund. See why »
- aemzx
- Mutual Fund
- International Stocks
- Emerging Markets
Acadian Emerging Markets Portfolio Class I
Expenses: 1.25% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Emerging Markets International Stocks fund. See why »