Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$JHY Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- pmzax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
PIMCO Mortgage Opportunities and Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 2.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ecgmx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Eaton Vance Global Macro Absolute Return Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.76% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- emsh
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
ProShares Short Term USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
Expenses: 0.50% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ecfax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Advantage Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.36% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- dsl
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
DoubleLine Income Solutions Fund
Expenses: 3.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- eshix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Eaton Vance Short Duration High Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.65% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- esicx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Wells Fargo International Bond Fund - Class Inst
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hflcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Hartford Floating Rate 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 »
- phymx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Putnam High Yield Fund Class M
Expenses: 1.27% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »