Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
2 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
2 /10
$GGRCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 643 US Stocks Large Growth funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- dwocx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
BNY Mellon Research Growth Fund, Inc. Class C
Expenses: 1.78% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- bdaix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Baron Durable Advantage Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- dlqax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
BNY Mellon Large Cap Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.09% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- jpecx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
JPMorgan Tax Aware Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.44% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- arttx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Artisan Focus Fund Investor Shares
Expenses: 1.37% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- wvalx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Weitz Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- dpuax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
BNY Mellon U.S. Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.15% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- bfthx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Baron Fifth Avenue Growth Fund Retail Class
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- wpasx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
AB Concentrated Growth Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.19% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »