Expense Ratio Rating
7 /10
Expense Rating
3 /10
Market Score
9 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
9 /10
$YACKX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 566 US Stocks Large Value funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- ecstx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- eqnax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
MFS Equity Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- eqtix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Shelton Capital Management Core Value Fund Direct Shares
Expenses: 0.82% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- dcgvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BNY Mellon Dynamic Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.68% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- uavax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
USAA Value Fund Adviser Shares
Expenses: 1.31% (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 »
- term
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Value
EquityCompass Tactical Risk Manager ETF
Expenses: 0.73% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- lbwax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
BrandywineGLOBAL - Diversified US Large Cap Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- lfeix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Value
Federated Equity Income Fund, Inc. Class F Shares
Expenses: 1.38% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Value US Stocks fund. See why »