Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
3 /10
Category Score
5 /10
Market Size
3 /10
$WFGBX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 748 Allocation All-In-One funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- cvy
- ETF
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Invesco Zacks Multi-Asset Income ETF
Expenses: 0.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- affix
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Yorktown Multi-Asset Income Fund Class L
Expenses: 1.59% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- rpfcx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Davis Appreciation & Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.01% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- astax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
American Century Strategic Allocation: Aggressive Fund C Class
Expenses: 2.26% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- bcgax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Sterling Capital Diversified Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.79% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- dfbax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Delaware Strategic Allocation Class A
Expenses: 1.16% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- mgxbx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
MainStay Growth Allocation Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.30% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- abpax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
AB Conservative Wealth Strategy Class A
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- poicx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Virtus Tactical Allocation 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 »