Expense Ratio Rating
0 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
6 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
6 /10
$RYAQX Alternatives
Different Funds
We found 11,127 Alternative Inverse funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- daiox
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Dunham International Opportunity Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.61% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- cuscx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Small Value
Cullen Small Cap Value Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Small Value US Stocks fund. See why »
- ryfax
- Mutual Fund
- Sector Equity
- Financial Services
Rydex Financial Services Fund Class H
Expenses: 1.73% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Financial Services Sector Equity fund. See why »
- leqax
- Mutual Fund
- Alternatives
- Short
LoCorr Dynamic Equity Fund Class A
Expenses: 3.02% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Short Alternatives fund. See why »
- hbfbx
- Mutual Fund
- Allocation
- All-In-One
Hennessy Balanced Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 1.88% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a All-In-One Allocation fund. See why »
- hiifx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Catalyst/SMH High Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.47% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hnrax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Highland Opportunistic Credit Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.25% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ftibx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Federated Global Total Return Bond Fund Class C Shares
Expenses: 1.77% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ihfcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Integrity High Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.64% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »