Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$MCFOX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 643 US Stocks Large Growth funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- stofx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Wells Fargo Large Cap Growth Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.82% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- biopx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Baron Opportunity Fund Retail Class
Expenses: 1.34% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- swlsx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Schwab Large-Cap Growth Fundâ¢
Expenses: 0.99% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- alfa
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
AlphaClone Alternative Alpha ETF
Expenses: 0.65% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- alcfx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Alger Focus Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.75% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- sagax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Virtus Zevenbergen Innovative Growth Stock Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.26% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- sggax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
DWS Large Cap Focus Growth Fund - Class A
Expenses: 1.15% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- stcax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Virtus Silvant Large-Cap Growth Stock Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.97% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- gxxax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Aberdeen U.S. Multi-Cap Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.19% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »