Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
3 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
3 /10
$DCHYX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- riocx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Columbia Income Opportunities 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 »
- ecsix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Eaton Vance Short Duration Strategic Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.93% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- pxhax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Pax High Yield Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.96% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- bxeyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Barings Emerging Markets Debt Blended Total Return Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.72% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- xprtx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Invesco Senior Loan Fund Class IB
Expenses: 1.69% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ncoax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Nuveen Symphony High Yield Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- rsflx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Victory Floating Rate Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ciocx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Columbia Corporate Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.51% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- bfccx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
American Funds Corporate Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.69% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »