Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
8 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
8 /10
$WLGAX 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- klgbx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
MainStay MacKay Growth Fund Class B
Expenses: 2.08% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- aqeix
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
LKCM Aquinas Catholic Equity Fund
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »
- bdafx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Growth
Baron Durable Advantage Fund Retail Shares
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Growth US Stocks fund. See why »