Expense Ratio Rating
9 /10
Expense Rating
7 /10
Market Score
0 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
0 /10
$SDAG Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- aybcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
AllianzGI High Yield Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.76% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hanax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Hanlon Managed Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.68% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- agccx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
AB Unconstrained Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.65% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- agmax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
AllianzGI Emerging Markets SRI Debt Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.06% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- mwsix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Metropolitan West Strategic Income Fund Class Institutional
Expenses: 1.53% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- bxgax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Barings Global High Yield Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.05% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- mhnax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Madison High Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- wambx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
WSTCM Credit Select Risk - Managed Fund Investor Shares
Expenses: 1.29% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- lbhax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
BrandywineGLOBAL - Global High Yield Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.15% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »