Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
2 /10
Market Score
7 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
7 /10
$AFDIX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- tfoax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Touchstone Focused Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- wfllx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Wells Fargo Large Cap Core Fund - Class Admin
Expenses: 0.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- eivax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Wells Fargo Classic Value Fund - Class A
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- dtcax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
BNY Mellon Sustainable U.S. Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- minvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Madison Investors Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- neoyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Natixis Funds Trust II Oakmark Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.91% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- psicx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
PGIM QMA Stock Index Fund- Class C
Expenses: 1.19% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- musbx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MFS Blended Research Core Equity Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.49% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- muecx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MFS Blended Research Core Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.49% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »