Expense Ratio Rating
10 /10
Expense Rating
10 /10
Market Score
9 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
9 /10
$FLCPX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- parnx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Parnassus Mid Cap Growth Fund - Investor
Expenses: 0.84% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- oardx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco Oppenheimer Rising Dividends Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- lcccx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Columbia Contrarian 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 »
- nmfax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Nationwide Mellon Dynamic U.S. Core 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 »
- pmyax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Putnam Multi-Cap Core Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.03% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- plicx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Principal LargeCap S&P 500 Index Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.30% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- ithrx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
The Hartford Capital Appreciation Fund Class R3
Expenses: 1.42% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- mubfx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MainStay MAP Equity Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- spxv
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
ProShares S&P 500 ex-Health Care ETF
Expenses: 0.27% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »