Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
9 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
9 /10
$ITHSX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- dwpp
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Trust Dorsey Wright People's Portfolio ETF
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nmiax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.88% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- silvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
SGI U.S. Large Cap Equity Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.93% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- jlcax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
JPMorgan U.S. Large Cap Core Plus Fund Class A Shares
Expenses: 1.91% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- acsi
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
American Customer Satisfaction ETF
Expenses: 0.66% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- arsqx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Aristotle Value Equity Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.78% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- ocrdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco Oppenheimer Rising Dividends Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- varix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Virtus Rampart Sector Trend Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.76% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- spicx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco S&P 500 Index Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.31% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- tlcyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Touchstone Large Cap Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- gspqx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Goldman Sachs U.S. Equity Dividend and Premium Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.87% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- omsox
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco Oppenheimer Main Street All Cap Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.14% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- pmycx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Putnam Multi-Cap Core Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.78% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- pmybx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Putnam Multi-Cap Core Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.78% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- gtcex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Glenmede Strategic Equity Portfolio
Expenses: 0.84% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- evtmx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Eaton Vance Dividend Builder Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.01% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- cmncx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Principal Capital Appreciation Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.70% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- mapax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MainStay MAP Equity 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 »
- afdcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
American Century Sustainable Equity Fund C Class
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »