Expense Ratio Rating
7 /10
Expense Rating
3 /10
Market Score
2 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
2 /10
$BXEYX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- nehyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Loomis Sayles High Income Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.77% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- chicx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Credit Suisse Floating Rate High Income Fund C
Expenses: 1.70% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- dlenx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income Fund Class N
Expenses: 1.15% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ihfix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Integrity High Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.64% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- msdix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
MainStay MacKay Unconstrained Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.02% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- gifpx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Guggenheim Floating Rate Strategies Fund Class P
Expenses: 1.07% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- nstix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.38% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- 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 »
- 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 »