Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
1 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$DLFRX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- gszcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Goldman Sachs Strategic Income 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 »
- emkcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Ashmore Emerging Markets Total Return Fund C Class
Expenses: 2.02% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- phcix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Virtus Newfleet High Yield Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- tldax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Thornburg Low Duration Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- iixix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Catalyst Insider Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- jphcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
JPMorgan Floating Rate Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.49% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ahycx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Invesco High Yield Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.76% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- eeicx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Eaton Vance Emerging Markets Local Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.90% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- echix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Eaton Vance High Income Opportunities Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.67% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »