Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
3 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
3 /10
$GILIX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- minvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Madison Investors Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- musbx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MFS Blended Research Core Equity Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.49% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- neoyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Natixis Funds Trust II Oakmark 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 »
- psicx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
PGIM QMA Stock Index Fund- Class C
Expenses: 1.19% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- muecx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MFS Blended Research Core Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.49% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- bpeqx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
UBS U.S. Sustainable Equity Fund Class P
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% 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 »
- midix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
DWS ESG Core Equity Fund - Class Institutional
Expenses: 0.91% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- 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 »