Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
1 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$BXIYX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- dhhax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Diamond Hill High Yield Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- smrsx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
ALPS/Smith Short Duration Bond Fund Investor Shares
Expenses: 0.76% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- tgwnx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
TCW Emerging Markets Local Currency Income Fund Class N
Expenses: 0.92% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- wsbax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Wilmington Short-Term Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.73% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ldsf
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
First Trust Low Duration Strategic Focus ETF
Expenses: 0.82% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- phylx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Putnam High Yield Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.77% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- labcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Loomis Sayles Strategic Alpha Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.73% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- phybx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Putnam High Yield Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.77% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- spfpx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
American Beacon Sound Point Floating Rate Income Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »