Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$NBSTX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- wil
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Barclays Women in Leadership ETN
Expenses: 0.45% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nyvbx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Davis New York Venture Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.92% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- csxcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Calvert US Large Cap Core Responsible Index Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.26% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- chgx
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Change Finance U.S. Large Cap Fossil Fuel Free ETF
Expenses: 0.49% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- drthx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
BNY Mellon Sustainable U.S. Equity Fund Class Z
Expenses: 0.78% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- seekx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Crossmark Steward Large Cap Enhanced Index Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.80% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- lgvax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
ClearBridge Value Trust Class A
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nraax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Sustainable Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- rffc
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
RiverFront Dynamic US Flex-Cap ETF
Expenses: 0.52% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »