Expense Ratio Rating
6 /10
Expense Rating
3 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$AFIFX Alternatives
Different Funds
We found 7,874 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- shscx
- Mutual Fund
- Sector Equity
- Healthcare
BlackRock Health Sciences Opportunities Portfolio Investor C Shares
Expenses: 1.85% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Healthcare Sector Equity fund. See why »
- stpp
- ETF
- Alternative
- Inverse
iPath US Treasury Steepener ETN
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Inverse Alternative fund. See why »
- svxy
- ETF
- Alternative
- Volatility
ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF
Expenses: 1.38% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Volatility Alternative fund. See why »
- tblu
- ETF
- Sector Equity
- Industrials
Tortoise Global Water ESG Fund
Expenses: 0.40% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Industrials Sector Equity fund. See why »
- tghyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
TCW High Yield Bond Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 0.55% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- tgmbx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
PGIM Corporate Bond Fund- Class Z
Expenses: 0.55% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- tnyix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Thornburg New York Intermediate Municipal Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.67% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- wflox
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Target-Date
Wells Fargo Target Today Fund - Class Admin
Expenses: 0.53% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Target-Date Allocation fund. See why »
- wfqax
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- Target-Date
Wells Fargo Target 2050 Fund - Class A
Expenses: 0.63% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Target-Date Allocation fund. See why »