Just to be credible, this is what I saw when I logged into my account this morning:

Looking @ everyone's comments I think there are no single comparable International funds. I think though that a combination of at least 2 or 3 funds will be a better choice. PRWCX Equity holdings basically mirror those of a conservative large
Growth fund or Large Blend fund. The 30% non-equity holdings are very unlike typical 50 - 70 allocation funds. Per Morningstar as of 12/31, these 3 categories of non equities have the following Portfolio Weights.
Bank Loan 37.35%
Cash & Equivalents 37.34%
Corporate Bond 21.83%
While I feel comfortable selecting a large Blend International Fund like TROSX or MDILX, but not sure what single bond fund would be a match fund, and I don't think an International Bond fund is necessary. Therefore maybe a bank loan fund, cash and a Corp bond fund that invests in Low Quality Limited Sensitivity
to interest rates. Not sure about a Corporate Bond choice - just following the Morningstar description. Thanks for all your suggestions. Any suggestions for the multiple fund concept?

(Excerpt) The rally came as technology bellwethers Meta Platforms Inc. and Spotify Technology SA forecast slowing growth, adding to concerns that monetary policy tightening will hurt the global economy.“The main news this morning is Meta’s numbers falling short of estimates,” said Andrew Ticehurst, rates strategist at Nomura Holdings Inc. “This has given us a bit of risk off, with E-mini around 1% lower, the Aussie and kiwi a little softer and bond yields down a few basis points,” he said, referring to S&P 500 futures.Benchmark 10-year yields in Australia and New Zealand fell at least four basis points. Treasuries rallied across the curve, with the 10-year yield down one basis point to 1.76%. Japan’s benchmark held steady at 0.175% after touching a six-year high of 0.185% this week.
What’s interesting is that late Wednesday evening the futures markets are looking glum, with the NASDAQ off 2.25%. Asian markets lower as well. Hoping not a bad sign for Thursday. I also think the movement in bonds is interesting - especially if it carries over to the U.S. markets Thursday.. FWIW - I can’t see how the issues re the Ukraine can be helping matters any.
Bloomberg is quoting 1.76% on the 10 year late Wednesday. That’s very close to the 1.74% it reached last March, So the Fed can “huff and puff” all they want. Yes, they can push short term rates a lot higher. But if longer term rates (market driven) don’t cooperate they face a real dilemma ISTM.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-bonds-rally-meta-growth-014605670.html
(Had better luck with this link not running my ad blocker. Not a lot of news at late night hour, so took what could find.)

Several international funds have APR's comparable or better than PRWCX over different timeframes. But there does not appear to be any fund with a combination of high R, comparable Sortino and APR. Looking at the data, it does not appear that these indicators are useful towards finding a PRWCX equivalent for international.
For example, below are some 15Y stats (Giroux has been running PRWCX since 2006 I think so 15Y is a good comparable stat)
OSMAX: 10.6
PRWCX: 10.3
MATFX: 10.3
FEAAX: 10.2

Not sure any of these statistical or return "correlations" matter per the original poster's question.

I'm looking for a similar fund which invests in the same fashion and falls into the same Allocation range 50 -70%, but which invests Internationally.

Bottom line, there doesn't seem to be an international balanced/allocation fund in the 50-70% equity category- period, let alone an international balanced fund similar to PRWCX. I'm quite surprised by that given the thousands of funds out there.

As a follow up, in order to get more candidates, I lowered the Sortino threshold to 1.5 and picked the 10 highest rated funds(excluded country specific funds).
Out of this crop popped out Grandeur Peak International Stalwarts Inst and Fidelity Series International Growth both with a R of 0.88

@david - tks
Here is the two part exercise I did
(1)Screened for international funds older than 5 years, Sortino > 2 and APR > 10. PRWCX Sortino and APR for past 5 years are 2.33 and 15.2 respectively
(2)Run a correlation matrix on the result set with PRWCX
The highest correlated are
WCM Focused International Growth Inst (0.87)
Brown Capital Management International Small Company Inst and WCM International Small Cap Growth Inst both tied at 0.85

@stayCalm: it was a brute force operation. Set the category parameter, sorted by 5-year Sharpe (PRWCX is near the top), then ran correlations on the top 20. ID'd the folks above 90 and checked the portfolios individually. Charles might have a more elegant solution but that was my study break today.
@yogi: hard to find a find that simultaneously outperforms TRP and has greater exposure to a lower-performing asset class, international equities. If the fortunes of domestic versus international investing change, I suppose that result would, too.

I scanned for funds with high five-year correlations to PRCWX and high international exposure. I'm not arguing for or against them, but I'll note the Pax Sustainable Allocation (PAXWX, formerly Pax World) and Fidelity Advisor Multi-Asset Income (FAYZX) have correlations in the 90s with TRP and double-digit exposure to international equities. Both are lower vol / lower return (12% APR vs 15% for TRP) over the past five years but the correlation implies the possibility of some comparable thinking.
The oddball is Prospector Capital Appreciation, which was launched by TRP Cap App's long-time manager (Richard Howard, who left after 7 years) to be a more nimble version of the fund. Fairly high correlation (93) and slightly more international, but distinctly weaker performance (50% greater volatility, 50% lower Sharpe, trailing by 350 bps).
And yes, I am supposed to be writing two lectures for tomorrow's first-day-of-term classes. (sigh)

American Funds are known for having lots of managers - some not even named. (And lots of fund classes too)
But some others have many managers too. Fido Balanced has 12 named managers.
VG may have thought that its Explorer didn't have enough with only 9 named managers from 5 subadvisors. So, it adds more with 6th subadvisor.
May be someone has info on what is the record on this? Absolute or relative (per billion AUM).

Using the ICI monthly data on the assets of US mutual funds (OEFs) and ETFs, following are the cumulative fund allocations among stock, hybrid, bond and money-market funds. Hybrid funds include stocks and bonds but their ratios can vary widely. Funds-of-funds are not included to avoid double-counting. These data are not expected to change much month by month but may change notably over time. ICI data are published late in the month for the prior month. One can call these America's asset allocation.
https://www.ici.org/statistics
12/31/21
OEFs: Stocks 54.6%, Hybrids 6.9%, Bonds 20.9%, M-Mkt 17.6%
ETFs: Stocks 82.3%, Hybrids 0.6%, Bonds 17.1%, M-Mkt N/A
OEFs & ETFs: Stocks 60.4%, Hybrids 5.6%, Bonds 20.1%, M-Mkt 13.9%
LINK

David: Thanks for the information. I use the fund with VELIX in the alternative long-short category. There R is .62 but only for 15 months, VELIX being relatively new.

Yogi summaries are valuable. I have a digital subscription to Barron’s but inevitably seem to miss articles of interest. One such example is @LewisBraham post on changes to the 401k. Content on the potential back door Roth elimination is important to me. The addition of annuities to the 401k… I wanted to see if the story would address what happens to your annuity when you pass. It covered the topic. Good content
“One of the behavioral reasons why people don’t want to select an annuity is they feel that ‘if I give you this money and I pass away in a year’s time, then I’ve lost the money,’ ” says Nick Nefouse, BlackRock’s head of Retirement Solutions. “The way we’ve structured this is your dependents will continue to receive the money to take that [anxiety] off the table.”
Your 401(k) Has Quietly Undergone Significant Changes. What to Know.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/401k-changes-three-major-additions-one-loss-51641495748

JMHO - But sounds to me like they’re hoping to chill some markets (housing & many equity sectors). But they’re not getting much response with mere words to date. Hence the talk of a .50% hike in the first meet. (I don’t think they’d dare.) Honestly, I don’t know what it would take to bring some rationality about. I doubt 1-2% in hikes could stem the mania - until after it bites deeply into the economy months later.
Powell is in a corner.
At some point psychology & momentum will turn. I guess a few of the most overpriced have already turned south. Some crypto and the ARKK stuff. (Yes ARKK may well be on the rebound - after something like a 70% fall from peak).
Full disclosure: I’m an invested bear.

It may be semantics. But M* defines World-Allocation as 70%- equity that includes 40%+ exposure to international stocks. On the other hand, moderate-allocation/50-70% equity has mostly domestic stocks.
World-allocation funds includes TIBAX/TBLD (CEF), SEGNX, CIBAX, etc. Fido had one that was shut and merged into other funds.

Fed fund futures market expectations now are +0.25% hikes in successive FOMC mtgs in March, May, June. Then skip hike in July, another hike (4th) in September, skip hike in November and another hike (5th) in December. This leads to a speculation that one of those early hikes (any of March, May, June but more likely March) could be +0.50%. Things can change - the fed fund futures can change; Powell can flip-flip (after all, he has done it several times (4?) already, and on rates in Fall 2019, well before anyone had heard of Covid-19).
https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/interest-rates/countdown-to-fomc.html

Fed’s Bullard Doesn’t think a half point rate increase “really helps us” …
Interviewed February 1
(Excerpt) St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard on Tuesday said he favors lifting rates at the U.S. central bank's meeting in March and likely again in May, but he pushed back against the idea of kicking off the coming tightening cycle with a half-percentage point hike. "I don't think a 50-basis point hike really helps us right now," Bullard said in an interview with Reuters … </i1
https://www.reuters.com/business/feds-bullard-does-not-think-half-point-rate-hike-really-helps-us-reuters-2022-02-01/

If you have specific questions about Invenomic, do let me know. Ali & co. have been pretty responsive in the past, going so far as meeting me for coffee and an interview in lovely Moline, Illinois. I'd happily raise your questions or ask the folks there to scan this thread (which they've been known to do).
I share, by the way, the concern over the fund's e.r. Part of the expense can be excused as "the inevitable cost of shorting securities," but the management fee is 1.74%. When I look at other five-star long-short equity funds, the equivalent numbers range from 1.20% (Alger) and 1.25% (Virtus KAR) to 1.50% (RiverPark) and 1.99% (Longboard). Again, that's management fee, not total e.r. but management fee is the thing most easily controlled by the advisor.
David

probably will be able to let things down easy
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&amp;emc=edit_pk_20220201&amp;instance_id=51861&amp;nl=paul-krugman&amp;productCode=PK&amp;regi_id=22268089&amp;segment_id=81324&amp;te=1&amp;uri=nyt://newsletter/292a92e4-f45d-5b58-9234-e4b0303326c2&amp;user_id=83d45440ead1d14c2a89a1e7221337d1

unusually high capital gains ... has ... drawn scrutiny from regulators
debate over whether target-date funds are suitable for taxable accounts
The high Vanguard distributions were the result of a technical change Vanguard made. It lowered the min for institutional funds, thus triggering a mass selloff by small company plans as they migrated from retail clones into the institutional funds.
Once one realizes this, the two statements above come off as a nonsequitor.
Suppose that instead of target date funds, Vanguard had lowered the min of VITPX from $100M to $5M. (For the sake of argument, assume VITNX, VSMPX, and VITSX did not exist.) One would expect to see a similar migration of small employer plans from the retail fund VTSAX to the institutional clone VITPX.
This in turn could trigger a large cap gain distribution to the remaining retail investors. VTSAX has unrealized cap gains amounting to about half of the fund assets, according to M*.
Surely one would not suggest that a total stock market fund was an inappropriate choice for a taxable account, just because a poorly planned change could could trigger a torrent of recognized cap gains.
This is a completely different question from whether target date funds are suitable for a taxable account.