Expense Ratio Rating
7 /10
Expense Rating
3 /10
Market Score
1 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
1 /10
$TLDAX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 1,315 Bond High Yield Bond funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- phymx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Putnam High Yield Fund Class M
Expenses: 1.27% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- giocx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Guggenheim Macro Opportunities Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.13% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- rpihx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
T. Rowe Price Global High Income 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 »
- esicx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Wells Fargo International Bond Fund - Class Inst
Expenses: 0.70% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- cdicx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Calvert Short Duration Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.55% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- delnx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
DoubleLine Low Duration Emerging Markets Fixed Income Fund Class N
Expenses: 0.84% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- emcb
- ETF
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
WisdomTree Emerging Markets Corporate Bond Fund
Expenses: 0.60% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- jemdx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
JPMorgan Emerging Markets Debt Fund Class I
Expenses: 0.95% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »
- agivx
- Mutual Fund
- Bond
- High Yield Bond
Invesco Income Fund Investor Class
Expenses: 0.93% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a High Yield Bond Bond fund. See why »