Expense Ratio Rating
10 /10
Expense Rating
10 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$SWLGX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 643 US Stocks Large Growth funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- tgvfx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Touchstone Growth Opportunities Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.24% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- klgcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
MainStay MacKay Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.08% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- sstfx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Virtus KAR Capital Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.02% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- qilgx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Federated MDT Large Cap Growth Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- jpfax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
JPMorgan Equity Focus Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.09% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- tcgcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Thornburg Core Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.18% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- pmpcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Putnam Sustainable Future Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.84% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- eclcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Eaton Vance Growth Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- exeyx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Manning & Napier Equity Series Class S
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »