Expense Ratio Rating
10 /10
Expense Rating
10 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$VTSAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- frdtx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Franklin Rising Dividends Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.62% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- piotx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Pioneer Core Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- xdiv
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Metaurus U.S. Equity Ex-Dividend Fund-Series 2027
Expenses: 0.58% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- aminx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Amana Mutual Funds Trust Income Fund Institutional
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- lamax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Lord Abbett Dividend Growth Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- oaklx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Oakmark Select Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- oeicx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
JPMorgan Equity Index Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- vadcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco Equally-Weighted S&P 500 Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.27% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- migcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Invesco Oppenheimer Main Street Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.62% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is an OK choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »