What I did to pull up Fidelity's fund was a quick search based on the criteria I gave: A or better, intermediate term, and sorted on SEC yield. Fidelity's fund was very close to the top (both in ranking and yield).
Another familiar face in the same neighborhood was Vanguard Intermediate Term Bond (VBILX). If I'm going to go with a bond index fund, I prefer intermediate over full market, because the latter ones are stuck with short term bonds (yielding nothing), and long term bonds (adding risk). Sometimes those bonds make sense in a fund, but IMHO not mechanically. VBILX has somewhat better total return, but with slightly increased volatility.
Which gets us to your question about total return funds. These are funds that are managed to take advantage of changes in the bond market - some sectors may be offering better value, or it may make sense to increase/decrease maturity (yield curves do not shift evenly, but the amount of change in rates depends on maturity and type of bonds). MWTRX does an excellent job at capturing this. But this is an aggressive strategy. It gives up current yield in order to capture appreciation by trading up and down yield curves (hence "total" return). Not as steady an income source, though a good fund like this one can do better in total performance (or worse, if it errs).
@Junkster can likely give a better commentary.
MBS bonds bring up a whole different set of issues. They typically offer a somewhat better yield than "regular" bonds, because they are not well behaved in markets where rates are changing rapidly. That's largely because they typically have calls built in - if you buy a home with a mortgage, and rates drop, you'll refinance (call the bond). So the bond holder doesn't benefit from the falling rates (and rising bond prices). On the other hand, if rates rise, you'll extend the life of the mortgage, taking advantage of the lender.
Gundlach is superb in managing these risks with derivatives. His funds still have risks. M* does not rate his funds; it's not just because they don't get along, but because they do not understand what he is doing. You can bet on the manager, or decide not to invest in what you don't understand.
In a sense, bonds and bond funds are very straightforward - there's no magic. If you want better performance, you take commensurately more risk. Risk comes in various flavors - credit/default risk, interest rate risk, sector risk, call risk, etc. I named FBNDX because it's a pretty vanilla fund without much risk in any dimension. Just what one might want as a "steady Edy" type of cash cow for income. Take incrementally more risk and the yield may grow more lumpy, the returns may come in the form of appreciation (you may need to sell shares to realize the income), and you're more likely to have the occasional "whoops" moment.
I use a few different bond funds, mostly in my IRAs, for diversification and total return. So I'm not averse to using funds all along the risk axis. They just have different uses. Right now, I don't see bond funds as being great for generating current income - for paying bills.
FWIW, a couple of other somewhat familiar and cheap funds I see in the same vicinity are PYCBX (unfortunately, $
100K min) and William Blair Bond (WBBNX with a
12b-
1 fee, or WBFIX with a TF to get at a brokerage with a reasonable minimum).
