Expense Ratio Rating
10 /10
Expense Rating
9 /10
Market Score
7 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
7 /10
$SWSBX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- embax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
VanEck Emerging Markets Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.26% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- cfrcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Catalyst Floating Rate Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.07% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hldcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Hartford Emerging Markets Local Debt Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.00% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- hiiix
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Catalyst/SMH High Income Fund Class I
Expenses: 1.22% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- mwstx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Metropolitan West Strategic Income Fund Class M
Expenses: 1.84% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- gcmdx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Goldman Sachs Local Emerging Markets Debt Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.98% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- cfoax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Calvert Floating-Rate Advantage Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.98% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- tphcx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Timothy Plan High Yield Bond Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.06% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- chyax
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
CMG Tactical Bond Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.74% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »