Expense Ratio Rating
10 /10
Expense Rating
10 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$SWPPX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- jrsix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Janus Henderson U.S. Managed Volatility Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- qtllx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
AQR TM Large Cap Multi-Style Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.45% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- crf
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Cornerstone Total Return Fund Inc
Expenses: 1.17% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- mxdu
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Nationwide Maximum Diversification U.S. Core Equity ETF
Expenses: 0.34% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- afdix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
American Century Sustainable Equity Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 0.80% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- qcenx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
AQR Large Cap Multi-Style Fund Class N
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- 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 »
- ftcs
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Trust Capital Strength ETF
Expenses: 0.58% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- oaylx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Oakmark Select Fund Class Advisor
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »