Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$LEDIX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- juctx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Janus Henderson Absolute Return Income Opportunities Fund - T Shares
Expenses: 0.93% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ifrcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Voya 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 »
- plahx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Pacific Funds High Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- fhicx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Federated High-Income Bond Fund Class C Shares
Expenses: 1.71% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- fcnbx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Templeton International 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 »
- dflcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
BNY Mellon Floating Rate Income 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 »
- wbrrx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
William Blair Income Fund Class N
Expenses: 0.85% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hldyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Hartford Emerging Markets Local Debt Fund Class Y
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- pggix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Putnam Global Income Trust Class A
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »