Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement
MFADX vs NLSAX
MFADX vs NLSAX Comparison
Open Charts MFADX vs NLSAX
Cromwell Long Short Investor
Price$23.59
Change-$0.28 (-1.17%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets88.25M
Neuberger Berman Long Short A
Price$18.93
Change-$0.13 (-0.68%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets7.37B
MFADX vs NLSAX Comparison Chart
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
MFADX vs. NLSAX commentary
Jun 14, 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 MFADX is a Buy and NLSAX is a Buy.
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
NLSAX has more cash in the bank: 7.37B vs. MFADX (88.3M). MFADX pays higher dividends than NLSAX: MFADX (0.92) vs NLSAX (0.00). MFADX was incepted earlier than NLSAX: MFADX (13 years) vs NLSAX (13 years). MFADX (2.34) is less costly to investors than NLSAX (1.68). MFADX is a more actively managed with annual turnover of: 108.00 vs. NLSAX (48.00). NLSAX has a lower initial minimum investment than MFADX: NLSAX (1000) vs MFADX (2000). MFADX annual gain was more profitable for investors over the last year : 9.36 vs. NLSAX (7.87). MFADX return over 5 years is better than : 51.56 vs. NLSAX (28.48).
| MFADX | NLSAX | MFADX / NLSAX | |
| Total Expense Ratio | 2.16 | 1.68 | 129% |
| Annual Report Gross Expense Ratio | 2.34 | 1.68 | 139% |
| Fund Existence | 13 years | 13 years | - |
| Gain YTD | 5.713 | 3.250 | 176% |
| Front Load | N/A | 6% | - |
| Min. Initial Investment | 2000 | 1000 | 200% |
| Min. Initial Investment IRA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Net Assets | 88.3M | 7.37B | 1% |
| Annual Yield % from dividends | 0.92 | 0.00 | - |
| Returns for 1 year | 9.36 | 7.87 | 119% |
| Returns for 3 years | 14.80 | 19.31 | 77% |
| Returns for 5 years | 51.56 | 28.48 | 181% |
| Returns for 10 years | 55.18 | 44.00 | 125% |
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement