Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement
MFADX vs NLSCX
MFADX vs NLSCX Comparison
Open Charts MFADX vs NLSCX
Cromwell Long Short Investor
Price$25.46
Change+$0.07 (+0.28%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets89.31M
Neuberger Berman Long Short C
Price$18.70
Change+$0.04 (+0.21%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets7.49B
MFADX vs NLSCX Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
MFADX vs. NLSCX commentary
Aug 29, 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 NLSCX is a Buy.
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
NLSCX has more cash in the bank: 7.49B vs. MFADX (89.3M). MFADX pays higher dividends than NLSCX: MFADX (0.86) vs NLSCX (0.00). MFADX was incepted earlier than NLSCX: MFADX (13 years) vs NLSCX (14 years). NLSCX (2.43) and MFADX (2.34) have similar cost to investors . MFADX is a more actively managed with annual turnover of: 108.00 vs. NLSCX (48.00). NLSCX has a lower initial minimum investment than MFADX: NLSCX (1000) vs MFADX (2000). MFADX annual gain was more profitable for investors over the last year : 13.29 vs. NLSCX (7.74). MFADX return over 5 years is better than : 41.82 vs. NLSCX (17.21).
| MFADX | NLSCX | MFADX / NLSCX | |
| Total Expense Ratio | 2.16 | 2.43 | 89% |
| Annual Report Gross Expense Ratio | 2.34 | 2.43 | 96% |
| Fund Existence | 13 years | 14 years | - |
| Gain YTD | 12.445 | 5.483 | 227% |
| Front Load | N/A | N/A | - |
| Min. Initial Investment | 2000 | 1000 | 200% |
| Min. Initial Investment IRA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Net Assets | 89.3M | 7.49B | 1% |
| Annual Yield % from dividends | 0.86 | 0.00 | - |
| Returns for 1 year | 13.29 | 7.74 | 172% |
| Returns for 3 years | 25.50 | 14.98 | 170% |
| Returns for 5 years | 41.82 | 17.21 | 243% |
| Returns for 10 years | 71.87 | 42.15 | 170% |
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement
Interesting Tickers