Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
1 /10
Market Score
3 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
3 /10
$VNSYX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- cohox
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Coho Relative Value Equity Fund Advisor Class
Expenses: 0.93% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- stsex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
BlackRock Exchange Portfolio BlackRock Shares
Expenses: 0.76% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- havgx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Haverford Quality Growth Stock Fund
Expenses: 0.81% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- fevax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Eagle U.S. Value Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.11% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- aeycx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
American Century Equity Growth Fund C Class
Expenses: 1.67% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- husv
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Trust Horizon Managed Volatility Domestic ETF
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- gpafx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Victory RS Large Cap Alpha Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- rnlc
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
First Trust Large Cap US Equity Select ETF
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- eivdx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Wells Fargo Classic Value Fund - Class Admin
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »