Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$OMSNX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- usgix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
USAA Growth & Income Fund Adviser Shares
Expenses: 1.15% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- hilvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Harbor Large Cap Value Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.06% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- tffyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Touchstone Focused Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.91% (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 »
- gssqx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Goldman Sachs U.S. Equity Insights Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.94% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- rdcex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Columbia Disciplined Core Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.73% (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 »
- avedx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Ave Maria Rising Dividend Fund
Expenses: 0.93% (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 »