Expense Ratio Rating
7 /10
Expense Rating
5 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$MASPX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- dvol
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Trust Dorsey Wright Momentum & Low Volatility ETF
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- dtcax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
BNY Mellon Sustainable U.S. Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- eivax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Wells Fargo Classic Value Fund - Class A
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- essix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Essential 40 Stock Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% 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 »
- gctcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Goldman Sachs U.S. Tax-Managed Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.85% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- 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 »
- pxgax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Pax ESG Beta Quality Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- sxpcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
DWS S&P 500 Index Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.30% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- fctr
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Trust Lunt U.S. Factor Rotation ETF
Expenses: 0.65% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nracx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Sustainable Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.79% (Better than 0% 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 »
- tfoax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Touchstone Focused 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 »
- 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 »
- minvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Madison Investors Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- nmuax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Multi-Cap Opportunities Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.12% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »