Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement
FSWCX vs RMEBX
FSWCX vs RMEBX Comparison
Open Charts FSWCX vs RMEBX
FSWCX vs RMEBX Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
FSWCX vs. RMEBX commentary
Jun 24, 2026
To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is FSWCX is a Hold and RMEBX is a Hold.
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
RMEBX has more cash in the bank: 117B vs. FSWCX (8.49B). FSWCX pays higher dividends than RMEBX: FSWCX (1.91) vs RMEBX (1.04). FSWCX was incepted earlier than RMEBX: FSWCX (9 years) vs RMEBX (12 years). RMEBX (1.07) is less costly to investors than FSWCX (0.11). FSWCX is a more actively managed with annual turnover of: 61.00 vs. RMEBX (30.00). FSWCX has a lower initial minimum investment than RMEBX: FSWCX (0) vs RMEBX (250). FSWCX annual gain was more profitable for investors over the last year : 26.38 vs. RMEBX (10.14). FSWCX return over 5 years is better than : 47.89 vs. RMEBX (35.62).
| FSWCX | RMEBX | FSWCX / RMEBX | |
| Total Expense Ratio | 0.11 | 1.07 | 10% |
| Annual Report Gross Expense Ratio | 0.11 | 1.07 | 10% |
| Fund Existence | 9 years | 12 years | - |
| Gain YTD | 13.606 | 6.444 | 211% |
| Front Load | N/A | N/A | - |
| Min. Initial Investment | 0 | 250 | - |
| Min. Initial Investment IRA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Net Assets | 8.49B | 117B | 7% |
| Annual Yield % from dividends | 1.91 | 1.04 | 185% |
| Returns for 1 year | 26.38 | 10.14 | 260% |
| Returns for 3 years | 58.84 | 34.54 | 170% |
| Returns for 5 years | 47.89 | 35.62 | 134% |
| Returns for 10 years | N/A | 94.57 | - |
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement