Expense Ratio Rating
9 /10
Expense Rating
7 /10
Market Score
9 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
9 /10
$FNCMX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 643 US Stocks Large Growth funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- fkacx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Franklin Growth Opportunities Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.69% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- eseax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Eaton Vance Atlanta Capital Select Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- pjfbx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
PGIM Jennison Growth Fund- Class B
Expenses: 1.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- legcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Columbia Large Cap Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.79% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- apdtx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Artisan Focus Fund Advisor Shares
Expenses: 1.17% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- rpeax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Davis Opportunity Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.93% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- wgfcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Wells Fargo Growth Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.91% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- klccx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Federated Kaufmann Large Cap Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.85% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- mrlsx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
AMG Renaissance Large Cap Growth Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »