Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement
MFADX vs NLSCX
MFADX vs NLSCX Comparison
Open Charts MFADX vs NLSCX
Cromwell Long Short Investor
Price$26.86
Change+$0.97 (+3.75%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets91.12M
Neuberger Berman Long Short C
Price$18.62
Change-$0.09 (-0.48%)
VolumeN/A
Net Assets8.16B
MFADX vs NLSCX Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
MFADX vs. NLSCX commentary
Feb 04, 2026
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: 8.16B vs. MFADX (91.1M). MFADX pays higher dividends than NLSCX: MFADX (0.02) 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 (0.96). 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 : 15.90 vs. NLSCX (2.65). MFADX return over 5 years is better than : 35.14 vs. NLSCX (14.66).
| 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 | 1.397 | -0.693 | -201% |
| Front Load | N/A | N/A | - |
| Min. Initial Investment | 2000 | 1000 | 200% |
| Min. Initial Investment IRA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Net Assets | 91.1M | 8.16B | 1% |
| Annual Yield % from dividends | 0.02 | 0.00 | - |
| Returns for 1 year | 15.90 | 2.65 | 601% |
| Returns for 3 years | 26.44 | 22.54 | 117% |
| Returns for 5 years | 35.14 | 14.66 | 240% |
| Returns for 10 years | 96.81 | 52.68 | 184% |
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement
Interesting Tickers