Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
0 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
0 /10
$IOLZX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 643 US Stocks Large Growth funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- insix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Catalyst Insider Buying Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.27% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- bfonx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Biondo Focus Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.50% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- gcgcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Goldman Sachs Concentrated Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.91% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- jlgax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
JAG Large Cap Growth Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.50% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- wwwfx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Kinetics Internet Fund No Load Class
Expenses: 1.84% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- jpfcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
JPMorgan Equity Focus Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.59% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- lgpix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
ProFunds Large Cap Growth Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.61% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- usmcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
AlphaSimplex Tactical U.S. Market Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.99% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- pgivx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Putnam Focused Equity Fund Class B
Expenses: 2.03% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »