Expense Ratio Rating
0 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$BWG Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- psrzx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
PIMCO Senior Floating Rate Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- jfiax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
John Hancock Funds Floating Rate Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.06% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- pebcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
PIMCO Emerging Markets Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- dsicx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Diamond Hill Corporate Credit Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.65% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- mwfrx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Metropolitan West Floating Rate Income Fund Class M
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- smasx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
ALPS/Smith Short Duration Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.74% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- shyox
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Western Asset Global High Yield Bond Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- pplcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
DWS Short Duration Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.54% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- apecx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Columbia High Yield Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.79% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »