Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement
FWCBX vs RMGSX
FWCBX vs RMGSX Comparison
Open Charts FWCBX vs RMGSX
FWCBX vs RMGSX Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
FWCBX has more cash in the bank: 130B vs. RMGSX (610M). FWCBX pays higher dividends than RMGSX: FWCBX (2.93) vs RMGSX (2.58). FWCBX was incepted earlier than RMGSX: FWCBX (6 years) vs RMGSX (9 years). RMGSX (1.08) is less costly to investors than FWCBX (0.31). RMGSX is a more actively managed with annual turnover of: 101.00 vs. FWCBX (50.00). RMGSX has a lower initial minimum investment than FWCBX: RMGSX (0) vs FWCBX (250). RMGSX annual gain was more profitable for investors over the last year : 13.71 vs. FWCBX (12.11). FWCBX return over 5 years is better than : 47.40 vs. RMGSX (28.94).
| FWCBX | RMGSX | FWCBX / RMGSX | |
| Total Expense Ratio | 0.31 | 0.90 | 34% |
| Annual Report Gross Expense Ratio | 0.31 | 1.08 | 29% |
| Fund Existence | 6 years | 9 years | - |
| Gain YTD | 11.695 | 9.167 | 128% |
| Front Load | N/A | N/A | - |
| Min. Initial Investment | 250 | 0 | - |
| Min. Initial Investment IRA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Net Assets | 130B | 610M | 21,311% |
| Annual Yield % from dividends | 2.93 | 2.58 | 113% |
| Returns for 1 year | 12.11 | 13.71 | 88% |
| Returns for 3 years | 49.26 | 47.74 | 103% |
| Returns for 5 years | 47.40 | 28.94 | 164% |
| Returns for 10 years | N/A | N/A | - |