Expense Ratio Rating
3 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
4 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
4 /10
$NWJTX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- fehax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
First Eagle High Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.24% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- tmayx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Touchstone Credit Opportunities II Fund Y
Expenses: 0.93% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- dblnx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
DoubleLine Income Fund Class N
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- psfrx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Virtus Newfleet Senior Floating Rate Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.10% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- agmix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
AllianzGI Emerging Markets SRI Debt Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 0.81% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- dpfax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Deer Park Total Return Credit Fund Class A
Expenses: 2.25% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- phscx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
PIMCO High Yield Spectrum Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.72% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- frfcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
PGIM Floating Rate Income Fund- Class C
Expenses: 1.72% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- eshax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Eaton Vance Short Duration High Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »