Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
9 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
9 /10
$HCACX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- btiix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
DWS Equity 500 Index Fund - Class Inst
Expenses: 0.23% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- fdetx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Fidelity Advisor® Capital Development Fund Class O
Expenses: 0.57% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- sapyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
ClearBridge Appreciation Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.66% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- snaex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Schroder North American Equity Fund Class Investor
Expenses: 0.33% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- jdeax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
JPMorgan U.S. Research Enhanced Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- moat
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
VanEck Vectors Morningstar Wide Moat ETF
Expenses: 0.48% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- fdlo
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Fidelity Low Volatility Factor ETF
Expenses: 0.29% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- flcex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Fidelity® Large Cap Core Enhanced Index Fund
Expenses: 0.39% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- auenx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
AQR Large Cap Defensive Style Fund Class N
Expenses: 0.65% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »