Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
2 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$GIJPX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 746 Bond Municipal Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- mbnyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund Class B
Expenses: 1.62% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- opcmx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Invesco Oppenheimer Municipal Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.31% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- mcnyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.62% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- vmttx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Viking Tax-Free Fund For Montana Class A
Expenses: 0.98% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- wwtcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Wells Fargo Wisconsin Tax-Free Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.45% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- lctcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Columbia Connecticut Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.25% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- okmux
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Oklahoma Municipal Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.98% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- pimex
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Putnam Intermediate-Term Municipal Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- avacx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
AB Municipal Income Fund II Virginia Portfolio Class C
Expenses: 1.56% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »