Expense Ratio Rating
1 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
7 /10
Category Score
8 /10
Market Size
7 /10
$RTCEX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 746 Bond Municipal Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- nitcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Aquila Narragansett Tax-Free Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.63% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- robcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Robinson Tax Advantaged Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.26% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- nninx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Columbia North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.56% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- nemux
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Nebraska Municipal Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.98% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- wntfx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Weitz Nebraska Tax-Free Income Fund
Expenses: 0.94% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- bmaax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
Sterling Capital Maryland Intermediate Tax-Free Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.92% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- pdscx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
PGIM Short Duration Muni Fund- Class C
Expenses: 1.60% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- aazcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
AB Municipal Income Fund II Arizona Portfolio Class C
Expenses: 1.53% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »
- pmccx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- Municipal Bond
BNY Mellon Connecticut Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.75% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Municipal Bond Bond fund. See why »