Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement
MFADX vs NLSCX
MFADX vs NLSCX Comparison
Open Charts MFADX vs NLSCX
Cromwell Long Short Investor
Price$25.52
Change+$0.20 (+0.79%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets89.33M
Neuberger Berman Long Short C
Price$18.74
Change+$0.03 (+0.16%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets7.53B
MFADX vs NLSCX Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
MFADX vs. NLSCX commentary
Sep 08, 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: 7.53B vs. MFADX (89.3M). MFADX pays higher dividends than NLSCX: MFADX (0.85) 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 : 15.55 vs. NLSCX (8.71). MFADX return over 5 years is better than : 44.43 vs. NLSCX (18.71).
| 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 | 12.400 | 5.822 | 213% |
| Front Load | N/A | N/A | - |
| Min. Initial Investment | 2000 | 1000 | 200% |
| Min. Initial Investment IRA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Net Assets | 89.3M | 7.53B | 1% |
| Annual Yield % from dividends | 0.85 | 0.00 | - |
| Returns for 1 year | 15.55 | 8.71 | 178% |
| Returns for 3 years | 28.54 | 16.42 | 174% |
| Returns for 5 years | 44.43 | 18.71 | 237% |
| Returns for 10 years | 73.73 | 43.08 | 171% |
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement
Interesting Tickers