Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
9 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
9 /10
$STCCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- dfrax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
DWS Floating Rate Fund - Class A
Expenses: 1.01% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- sahyx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Western Asset Global High Yield Bond 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 »
- jecax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
JPMorgan Emerging Markets Strategic Debt Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- dnfrx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Dunham Floating Rate Bond Fund Class N
Expenses: 1.01% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- stsbx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Virtus Seix Short-Term Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.80% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- tmayx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Touchstone Credit Opportunities II Fund Y
Expenses: 0.93% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- sasfx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
AIG Senior Floating Rate Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.02% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- lmyix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
BrandywineGLOBAL - Global High Yield Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.85% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- anhax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Angel Oak High Yield Opportunities Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »