Ad is loading...
MFADX vs NLSCX
MFADX vs NLSCX Comparison
Open Charts MFADX vs NLSCX
Cromwell Long Short Investor
Price$22.24
Change+$0.15 (+0.68%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets83.7M
Neuberger Berman Long Short C
Price$17.90
Change+$0.09 (+0.51%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets7.24B
MFADX vs NLSCX Comparison Chart
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
MFADX vs. NLSCX commentary
May 02, 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: 7.24B vs. MFADX (83.7M). MFADX pays higher dividends than NLSCX: MFADX (0.97) vs NLSCX (0.00). MFADX was incepted earlier than NLSCX: MFADX (13 years) vs NLSCX (13 years). NLSCX (2.43) is less costly to investors than MFADX (2.20). 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). NLSCX annual gain was more profitable for investors over the last year : 6.65 vs. MFADX (-0.42). MFADX return over 5 years is better than : 48.68 vs. NLSCX (25.23).
| MFADX | NLSCX | MFADX / NLSCX | |
| Total Expense Ratio | 1.98 | 2.43 | 81% |
| Annual Report Gross Expense Ratio | 2.20 | 2.43 | 91% |
| Fund Existence | 13 years | 13 years | - |
| Gain YTD | -2.170 | 0.678 | -320% |
| Front Load | N/A | N/A | - |
| Min. Initial Investment | 2000 | 1000 | 200% |
| Min. Initial Investment IRA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Net Assets | 83.7M | 7.24B | 1% |
| Annual Yield % from dividends | 0.97 | 0.00 | - |
| Returns for 1 year | -0.42 | 6.65 | -6% |
| Returns for 3 years | 3.49 | 9.74 | 36% |
| Returns for 5 years | 48.68 | 25.23 | 193% |
| Returns for 10 years | 38.13 | 29.65 | 129% |
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
Ad is loading...
Interesting Tickers