Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
5 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
5 /10
$MLVGX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- husv
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Trust Horizon Managed Volatility Domestic ETF
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- cohox
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Coho Relative Value Equity Fund Advisor Class
Expenses: 0.93% (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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »