Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$AMANX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- nacp
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- ectmx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Eaton Vance Dividend Builder Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.77% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- fmk
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Trust Mega Cap AlphaDEX Fund
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nsgcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Columbia Select Large Cap Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.55% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- maaax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MainStay Epoch U.S. All Cap Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- mmpcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MainStay MAP Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.07% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- ptmcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
PGIM QMA Large-Cap Core Equity Fund- Class C
Expenses: 1.47% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- mfqtx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
AMG FQ Tax-Managed U.S. Equity Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.88% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- jicax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
JPMorgan Intrepid Sustainable Equity Fund Class A Shares
Expenses: 0.83% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »