Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
8 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
8 /10
$CHTCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- essix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Essential 40 Stock Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nracx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Sustainable Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.79% (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 »
- lsaf
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
LeaderSharesTM AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% 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 »
- pxwgx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Pax ESG Beta Quality Fund Individual Investor Class
Expenses: 0.90% (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 »
- pfcdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Pacific Funds Large-Cap Advisor Class
Expenses: 0.67% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- pxgax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Pax ESG Beta Quality Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »