Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
5 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
5 /10
$FIIGX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- pficx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Putnam Floating Rate Income 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 »
- rebcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Columbia Emerging Markets Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.86% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- epbix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
EuroPac International Bond 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 »
- dpfcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Deer Park Total Return Credit Fund Class C
Expenses: 3.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- emtcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Transamerica Emerging Markets Debt Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.88% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- dmo
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Western Asset Mortgage Defined Opportunity Fund Inc.
Expenses: 3.56% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- flrcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Pioneer Floating Rate 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 »
- rsivx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
RiverPark Strategic Income Fund Retail Class
Expenses: 1.33% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hfhcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Hartford Floating Rate High Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.80% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »