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.
- mhbnx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
BMO High Yield Bond 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 »
- 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 »
- lwoix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
BrandywineGLOBAL - International Opportunities Bond Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.75% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hyfix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Harbor High-Yield Bond Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.01% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- tgwnx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
TCW Emerging Markets Local Currency Income Fund Class N
Expenses: 0.92% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- phylx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Putnam High Yield Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.77% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ssicx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Sierra Tactical Core Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.95% (Better than 0% 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 »
- 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 »