Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
1 /10
Market Score
9 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
9 /10
$OAKMX 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 »
- sye
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
SPDR MFS Systematic Core Equity ETF
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- eivdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Wells Fargo Classic Value Fund - Class Admin
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »