Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$ELBIX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- 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 »
- 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 »
- 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 »
- abhix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
American Century High-Yield Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 0.78% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ssbtx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Virtus Seix Short-Term Bond Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% 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 »
- egrcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Eaton Vance Global Macro Absolute Return Advantage Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.29% (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 »
- nhicx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Neuberger Berman High Income Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.83% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »