Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
5 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
5 /10
$DSEPX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- pmycx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Putnam Multi-Cap Core Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.78% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- acsi
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
American Customer Satisfaction ETF
Expenses: 0.66% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- tlcyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Touchstone Large Cap Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- varix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Virtus Rampart Sector Trend Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.76% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- ocrdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco Oppenheimer Rising Dividends Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- omsox
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco Oppenheimer Main Street All Cap Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.14% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- cavax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
SEI Catholic Values Trust Catholic Values Equity Fund Class F
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- mapax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MainStay MAP Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.11% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- cmncx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Principal Capital Appreciation Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.70% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »