Expense Ratio Rating
9 /10
Expense Rating
8 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$VLACX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- wfivx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Wilshire 5000 Index Portfolio Investment Class Shares
Expenses: 0.62% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- oardx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco Oppenheimer Rising Dividends Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- lcccx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Columbia Contrarian Core Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.78% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- nmfax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Nationwide Mellon Dynamic U.S. Core Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- pmyax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Putnam Multi-Cap Core Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.03% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- tffix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Touchstone Focused Fund Institutional
Expenses: 0.83% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- rwls
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Direxion Russell Large Over Small Cap ETF
Expenses: 0.63% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- plicx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Principal LargeCap S&P 500 Index Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.30% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- mubfx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
MainStay MAP Equity Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »