Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement
GILAX vs RMFCX
GILAX vs RMFCX Comparison
Open Charts GILAX vs RMFCX
Lord Abbett Fundamental Equity C
Price$14.35
Change+$0.01 (+0.07%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets2.1B
American Funds American Mutual R3
Price$62.21
Change+$0.11 (+0.18%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets112.6B
GILAX vs RMFCX Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
GILAX vs. RMFCX commentary
Oct 09, 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 Hold.
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
RMFCX has more cash in the bank: 113B vs. GILAX (2.1B). RMFCX pays higher dividends than GILAX: RMFCX (1.20) vs GILAX (0.17). GILAX was incepted earlier than RMFCX: GILAX (32 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 : 7.84 vs. GILAX (6.26). RMFCX return over 5 years is better than : 58.89 vs. GILAX (48.71).
| GILAX | RMFCX | GILAX / RMFCX | |
| Total Expense Ratio | 1.70 | 0.91 | 187% |
| Annual Report Gross Expense Ratio | 1.70 | 0.91 | 187% |
| Fund Existence | 32 years | 23 years | - |
| Gain YTD | 12.647 | 14.983 | 84% |
| Front Load | N/A | N/A | - |
| Min. Initial Investment | 1500 | 250 | 600% |
| Min. Initial Investment IRA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Net Assets | 2.1B | 113B | 2% |
| Annual Yield % from dividends | 0.17 | 1.20 | 14% |
| Returns for 1 year | 6.26 | 7.84 | 80% |
| Returns for 3 years | 45.34 | 43.87 | 103% |
| Returns for 5 years | 48.71 | 58.89 | 83% |
| Returns for 10 years | 24.68 | 94.24 | 26% |