Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$GSRCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- pxwgx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Pax ESG Beta Quality Fund Individual Investor Class
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nracx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Sustainable Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.79% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- gctcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Goldman Sachs U.S. Tax-Managed Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.85% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- sxpcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
DWS 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 »
- 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 »
- pfcdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Pacific Funds Large-Cap Advisor Class
Expenses: 0.67% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- 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 »
- dtcax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
BNY Mellon Sustainable U.S. Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.95% (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 »