Expense Ratio Rating
0 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
0 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
0 /10
$IMSAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- jicax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
JPMorgan Intrepid Sustainable Equity Fund Class A Shares
Expenses: 0.83% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- eeh
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
ELEMENTS Linked to SPECTRUM Large Cap U.S. Sector Momentum Index
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nlcdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Nuveen Large Cap Core Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.73% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- tffcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Touchstone Focused Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- taclx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Touchstone Large Cap 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 »
- ptmbx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
PGIM QMA Large-Cap Core Equity Fund- Class B
Expenses: 1.59% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- srvex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Victory Diversified Stock Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.08% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- pxiix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Virtus Rampart Enhanced Core Equity Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- mnvax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Madison Investors 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 »