Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
8 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
8 /10
$PCODX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- muecx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MFS Blended Research Core Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.49% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- psicx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
PGIM QMA Stock Index Fund- Class C
Expenses: 1.19% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- neoyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Natixis Funds Trust II Oakmark 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 »
- kng
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
CBOE Vest S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Target Income Index ETF
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nfaax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Focus 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 »
- womn
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Impact Shares YWCA Women's Empowerment ETF
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- ylde
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
ClearBridge Dividend Strategy ESG ETF
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- evstx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Wells Fargo Disciplined U.S. Core Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.59% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- vnsyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Natixis Vaughan Nelson Select 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 »