Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$MSYLX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- anflx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Angel Oak Financials Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.94% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- mhoax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
MFS Global High Yield Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- gifcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Guggenheim Floating Rate Strategies Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.82% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- fricx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Federated Floating Rate Strategic Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.74% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- flarx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Pioneer Floating Rate Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.07% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- scfcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Shenkman Capital Short Duration High Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.70% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- sihpx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Guggenheim High Yield Fund Class P
Expenses: 1.28% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- bxfax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Barings Global Floating Rate Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- fhbbx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Federated High-Income Bond Fund Class B Shares
Expenses: 1.74% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »