Ad is loading...
GILAX vs RMFCX
GILAX vs RMFCX Comparison
Open Charts GILAX vs RMFCX
Lord Abbett Fundamental Equity C
Price$12.57
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets1.87B
American Funds American Mutual R3
Price$54.99
Change-$0.12 (-0.22%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets100.86B
GILAX vs RMFCX Comparison Chart
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
GILAX vs. RMFCX commentary
May 12, 2025
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 GILAX is a Buy and RMFCX is a Buy.
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
RMFCX has more cash in the bank: 101B vs. GILAX (1.87B). RMFCX pays higher dividends than GILAX: RMFCX (1.37) vs GILAX (0.20). GILAX was incepted earlier than RMFCX: GILAX (31 years) vs RMFCX (23 years). GILAX (1.70) is less costly to investors than RMFCX (0.91). GILAX is a more actively managed with annual turnover of: 39.00 vs. RMFCX (31.00). RMFCX has a lower initial minimum investment than GILAX: RMFCX (250) vs GILAX (1500). RMFCX annual gain was more profitable for investors over the last year : 4.39 vs. GILAX (-0.29). RMFCX return over 5 years is better than : 55.82 vs. GILAX (48.76).
| GILAX | RMFCX | GILAX / RMFCX | |
| Total Expense Ratio | 1.70 | 0.91 | 187% |
| Annual Report Gross Expense Ratio | 1.70 | 0.91 | 187% |
| Fund Existence | 31 years | 23 years | - |
| Gain YTD | -1.257 | 1.050 | -120% |
| Front Load | N/A | N/A | - |
| Min. Initial Investment | 1500 | 250 | 600% |
| Min. Initial Investment IRA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Net Assets | 1.87B | 101B | 2% |
| Annual Yield % from dividends | 0.20 | 1.37 | 15% |
| Returns for 1 year | -0.29 | 4.39 | -7% |
| Returns for 3 years | 19.21 | 17.27 | 111% |
| Returns for 5 years | 48.76 | 55.82 | 87% |
| Returns for 10 years | 3.76 | 60.49 | 6% |
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
Ad is loading...