I count 36 LACs that claim to meet 100% of demonstrated need.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2014/09/15/colleges-and-universities-that-claim-to-meet-full-financial-need
Virtually all of them also offer small classes, total focus on undergrads, professors with PhDs from top graduate programs, good facilities, high 4 year graduation rates, and a very similar arts & science curriculum. Many of them feature old ivy-covered buildings set around tree-lined quads in sleepy rural or suburban towns. They are all selective, with average entering SAT CR+M scores in most cases above 1300 and admit rates in most cases well under 50%.
So what are we trying to differentiate when we rank these schools?
I don’t mean to suggest there are no significant differences. However, to me, there seems to be much less variation in structure or quality among the top ~40 national LACs than there is among the top ~40 national universities. I doubt a random English major is getting a significantly better education at Williams or Amherst than s/he would at Kenyon, Richmond, or Barnard. Perhaps the main persistent advantage of attending Williams or Amherst is that it telegraphs to the world that you got into Williams or Amherst.