Expense Ratio Rating
8 /10
Expense Rating
6 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$QCELX 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 »
- ptoax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
PIMCO StocksPLUS® Absolute Return Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.13% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- qiacx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Federated MDT All Cap Core Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 0.78% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- afnax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
AAM/Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.08% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nbstx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Sustainable Equity Fund Trust Class
Expenses: 1.03% (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 »
- onrdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco Oppenheimer Rising Dividends Fund Class R
Expenses: 1.30% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- rodi
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Barclays Return on Disability ETN
Expenses: 0.45% (Better than 1% 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 »