Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
2 /10
Market Score
3 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
3 /10
$HAVGX 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 »
- lsaf
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
LeaderSharesTM AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- afycx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
AAM/Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.83% (Better than 0% 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 »
- 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 »
- nfaax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Focus Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.11% (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 »
- 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 »