Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
3 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
3 /10
$WLCVX 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- sviix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Virtus Ceredex Large-Cap Value Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.24% (Better than 0% 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 »
- 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 »
- blvax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BMO Low Volatility Equity 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 »
- smvlx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Smead Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.24% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- hvosx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Hartford Quality Value Fund Class R4
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »