Expense Ratio Rating
6 /10
Expense Rating
3 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$QTLNX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- acsi
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
American Customer Satisfaction ETF
Expenses: 0.66% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- omsox
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco Oppenheimer Main Street All Cap Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.14% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- spicx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco S&P 500 Index Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.31% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- ocrdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco Oppenheimer Rising Dividends Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- silvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
SGI U.S. Large Cap Equity Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.93% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- ndgix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Dividend Growth Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 0.69% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- afdcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
American Century Sustainable Equity Fund C Class
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- evtmx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Eaton Vance Dividend Builder Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.01% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- xlsr
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
SPDR SSGA U.S. Sector Rotation ETF
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »