Expense Ratio Rating
6 /10
Expense Rating
2 /10
Market Score
3 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
3 /10
$FSAHX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- kcny
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
KraneShares E Fund China Commercial Paper ETF
Expenses: 0.59% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ashcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
AllianzGI Short Duration High Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.14% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- chicx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Credit Suisse Floating Rate High Income Fund C
Expenses: 1.70% (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 »
- 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 »
- jmkax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
John Hancock Funds Emerging Markets Debt Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.18% (Better than 0% 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 »
- nehyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Loomis Sayles High Income Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.77% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- jhbtx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Janus Henderson Global Bond Fund Class T
Expenses: 0.85% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »