Expense Ratio Rating
9 /10
Expense Rating
7 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$GUDB Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- dibax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
BNY Mellon International Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.02% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- labcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Loomis Sayles Strategic Alpha Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.73% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- femb
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
First Trust Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond ETF
Expenses: 0.85% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- rphyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund Class Retail
Expenses: 1.18% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- frfax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
PGIM Floating Rate Income Fund- Class A
Expenses: 0.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- wsbax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Wilmington Short-Term Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.73% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- masax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
MainStay MacKay Unconstrained Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.27% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- pshcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Pioneer Short Term Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.03% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- jecsx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
JPMorgan Emerging Markets Strategic Debt Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »