Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$MUECX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- spxt
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
ProShares S&P 500 ex-Technology ETF
Expenses: 0.27% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- agizx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Alger Growth & Income Fund Class Z
Expenses: 0.69% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- dstl
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Distillate U.S. Fundamental Stability & Value ETF
Expenses: 0.39% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nsbcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Nuveen Santa Barbara Dividend Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.71% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- jlpsx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
JPMorgan U.S. Large Cap Core Plus Fund Class I Shares
Expenses: 1.67% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- pspax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
PIMCO StocksPLUS® Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.96% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- amanx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Amana Mutual Funds Trust Income Fund Investor
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- jiisx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
JPMorgan Intrepid Sustainable Equity Fund I Class
Expenses: 0.58% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- fevax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Eagle U.S. Value 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 »