Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$JECAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- dchyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Dunham High-Yield Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.87% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- tflcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Transamerica Floating Rate 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 »
- pcwcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
PGIM Corporate Bond Fund- Class C
Expenses: 1.55% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- jsvcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
James Alpha Structured Credit Value Portfolio Class C
Expenses: 2.49% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ogynx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Invesco High Yield Bond Factor Fund Class R
Expenses: 1.40% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hiiix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Catalyst/SMH High Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hldcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Hartford Emerging Markets Local Debt Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- embax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
VanEck Emerging Markets Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.26% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- nhsax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Neuberger Berman Short Duration High Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.13% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »