Expense Ratio Rating
4 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$RFRAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- sghax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
DWS Global High Income Fund - Class A
Expenses: 0.85% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- sigax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Western Asset Corporate Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.93% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- jro
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Nuveen Floating Rate Income Opportunity Fund
Expenses: 3.31% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- tldix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Thornburg Low Duration Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.50% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- jqc
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Nuveen Credit Strategies Income Fund
Expenses: 3.42% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- pysgx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Payden Strategic Income Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- mzhix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Muzinich U.S. High Yield Corporate Bond Fund Institutional Shares
Expenses: 0.59% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ecblx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Eaton Vance Floating - Rate 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 »
- labax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Loomis Sayles Strategic Alpha Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.99% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »