Expense Ratio Rating
7 /10
Expense Rating
3 /10
Market Score
2 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
2 /10
$STICX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- hosbx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Homestead Funds Short-Term Bond Fund
Expenses: 0.79% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- fldcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Franklin Low Duration Total Return Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.08% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- ashax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
AllianzGI Short Duration High Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.88% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- sfhy
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
WisdomTree U.S. Short-Term High Yield Corporate Bond Fund
Expenses: 0.38% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- liiax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Columbia Corporate Income Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.91% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hyhg
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
ProShares High Yield—Interest Rate Hedged
Expenses: 0.50% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- lroix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
BrandywineGLOBAL - Global Unconstrained Bond 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 »
- pfncx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
PIMCO Low Duration Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.25% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- emag
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
VanEck Vectors Emerging Markets Aggregate Bond ETF
Expenses: 0.35% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »