Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$NBGTX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 643 US Stocks Large Growth funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- dwocx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
BNY Mellon Research Growth Fund, Inc. Class C
Expenses: 1.78% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- arttx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Artisan Focus Fund Investor Shares
Expenses: 1.37% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- sdgcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
DWS Capital Growth Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.78% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- elgcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Columbia Select Large Cap Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.88% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- dpuax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
BNY Mellon U.S. Equity 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 »
- bfthx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Baron Fifth Avenue Growth Fund Retail Class
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- spfax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
PGIM Jennison Focused Growth 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 »
- aqlgx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Alta Quality Growth Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 0.79% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- ryatx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Rydex NASDAQ-100® Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.61% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »