Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
2 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
2 /10
$CFRAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- gshcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Goldman Sachs High Yield Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.78% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hsdcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Hartford Short Duration Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.55% (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 »
- 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 »
- inclx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Transamerica High Yield Bond C
Expenses: 1.75% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- laaax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Western Asset Macro Opportunities Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.57% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- kcny
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
KraneShares E Fund China Commercial Paper ETF
Expenses: 0.59% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- eidox
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Eaton Vance Emerging Markets Debt Opportunities Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.90% (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 »