Expense Ratio Rating
0 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
3 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
3 /10
$AUUCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- evstx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Wells Fargo Disciplined U.S. Core Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.59% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- utrn
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Vesper U.S. Large Cap Short-Term Reversal Strategy ETF
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- pspcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
PIMCO StocksPLUS® Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.48% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- midix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
DWS ESG Core Equity Fund - Class Institutional
Expenses: 0.91% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- vnsyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Natixis Vaughan Nelson Select 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 »
- ylde
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
ClearBridge Dividend Strategy ESG ETF
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- lzusx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Lazard US Equity Focus Portfolio Institutional Shares
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- womn
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Impact Shares YWCA Women's 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 »
- qgiax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Pear Tree Quality Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 0.87% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »