Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
3 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
3 /10
$IOBAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- shyox
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Western Asset Global High Yield Bond Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.89% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- plbcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Pacific Funds Floating Rate Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.71% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- cpuax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
AAM/Insight Select Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.84% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- mwfrx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Metropolitan West Floating Rate Income Fund Class M
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- bifix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
William Blair Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- sticx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Virtus Seix Corporate Bond Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- pebcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
PIMCO Emerging Markets Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.97% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- tgwix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
TCW Emerging Markets Local Currency Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.88% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- fdbbx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Federated Bond Fund Class B Shares
Expenses: 1.70% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »