Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$FEVAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- egoax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Wells Fargo Large Cap Core Fund - Class A
Expenses: 1.08% (Better than 0% 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 »
- 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 »
- fevcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Eagle U.S. Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.87% (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 »
- gsusx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Goldman Sachs U.S. Equity Insights Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.69% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »