Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
7 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
7 /10
$GSPAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- tfoax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Touchstone Focused Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- eivax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Wells Fargo Classic Value Fund - Class A
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- pxgax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Pax ESG Beta Quality 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 »
- dvol
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Trust Dorsey Wright Momentum & Low Volatility ETF
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nmuax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Multi-Cap Opportunities Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.12% (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 »
- 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 »
- nbfcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Focus Fund Trust Class
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- kng
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
CBOE Vest S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Target Income Index ETF
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »