Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$AICCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- gssqx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Goldman Sachs U.S. Equity Insights Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.94% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- mlvax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MFS Low Volatility Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- usgix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
USAA Growth & Income Fund Adviser Shares
Expenses: 1.15% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- szne
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Pacer CFRA-Stovall Equal Weight Seasonal Rotation ETF
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- mclrx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
BlackRock Advantage Large Cap Core Fund Investor C Shares
Expenses: 1.48% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- gctax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Goldman Sachs U.S. Tax-Managed Equity 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 »
- rffc
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
RiverFront Dynamic US Flex-Cap ETF
Expenses: 0.52% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- rodi
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Barclays Return on Disability ETN
Expenses: 0.45% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- hilvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Harbor Large Cap Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.06% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »