Expense Ratio Rating
8 /10
Expense Rating
3 /10
Market Score
9 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
9 /10
$SBLYX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 643 US Stocks Large Growth funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- ettgx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Growth 1.1 Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.78% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- pwb
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF
Expenses: 0.55% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- peqzx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
PGIM Jennison Blend Fund- Class Z
Expenses: 0.69% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- amigx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Amana Mutual Funds Trust Growth Fund Institutional
Expenses: 0.84% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- qqew
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
First Trust NASDAQ-100 Equal Weighted Index Fund
Expenses: 0.59% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- cpodx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Morgan Stanley Insight Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- qgro
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
American Century U.S. Quality Growth ETF
Expenses: 0.29% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- twmtx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Transamerica US Growth Class T
Expenses: 0.80% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- gtllx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Glenmede Quantitative U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity Portfolio
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »