Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
1 /10
Market Score
9 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
9 /10
$SHAPX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- pfprx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Parnassus Mid Cap Growth Fund - Institutional
Expenses: 0.68% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- fex
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Trust Large Cap Core AlphaDEX Fund
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- eqwl
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF
Expenses: 0.25% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- bspzx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
iShares S&P 500 Index Fund Investor C1 Shares
Expenses: 1.08% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- lvus
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Hartford Multifactor Low Volatility US Equity ETF
Expenses: 0.19% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- tmlcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
SEI Institutional Managed Trust Tax-Managed Large Cap Fund Class F
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nwaex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Nationwide Mellon Dynamic U.S. Core Fund Eagle Class
Expenses: 0.76% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- esg
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
FlexShares STOXX US ESG Impact Index Fund
Expenses: 0.32% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- sgiex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Columbia Contrarian Core Fund Class V
Expenses: 1.03% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »