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.
- eidox
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Eaton Vance Emerging Markets Debt Opportunities Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- abhix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
American Century High-Yield Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 0.78% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ihfix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Integrity High Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.64% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- laaax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Western Asset Macro Opportunities Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.57% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ssbtx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Virtus Seix Short-Term Bond Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- gshcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Goldman Sachs High Yield 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 »
- hwhcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Hotchkis & Wiley High Yield 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 »
- msdix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
MainStay MacKay Unconstrained Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.02% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- jhbtx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Janus Henderson Global Bond Fund Class T
Expenses: 0.85% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »