Expense Ratio Rating
9 /10
Expense Rating
7 /10
Market Score
9 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
9 /10
$EMLC Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- lasyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Loomis Sayles Strategic Alpha Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.74% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- fhqrx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Franklin High Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.86% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ghyg
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
iShares US & Intl High Yield Corp Bond ETF
Expenses: 0.40% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- bsjo
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Invesco BulletShares 2024 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
Expenses: 0.42% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- mciyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
BMO Corporate Income Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.59% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- bbsgx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Sterling Capital Short Duration Bond Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.43% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- nusa
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Nuveen Enhanced Yield 1-5 Year U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF
Expenses: 0.20% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- fajex
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Frost Total Return Bond Fund A Class Shares
Expenses: 0.88% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- mawix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
BlackRock Strategic Global Bond Fund, Inc. Institutional Shares
Expenses: 0.63% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »