Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$LBHAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- 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 »
- dsicx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Diamond Hill Corporate Credit Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.65% (Better than 0% 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 »
- padcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
PGIM Absolute Return Bond Fund- Class C
Expenses: 1.78% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- 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 »
- nstix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.38% (Better than 0% 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 »
- jfiax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
John Hancock Funds Floating Rate Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.06% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- nshax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Neuberger Berman Short Duration Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.76% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »