Live tracker of default-rate and recovery-rate disclosures by European P2P platforms. Updated monthly. Disclosure quality is a scoring signal - platforms that publish granular default and recovery data score higher on our transparency dimension.
The following platforms publish meaningful data on defaults, recoveries, or capital losses - either through investor dashboards, quarterly reports, or completed-deal histories. Disclosure does not eliminate risk, but it allows informed decision-making.
| Platform | Score | Disclosure type | Key figures (as of Jan 2026) | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maclear | 9.3 | Per-loan status | 1 default, covered in full by platform | Complete transparency on every loan; single default event handled without investor loss |
| InRento | 8.7 | Track record statement | 0 capital losses in 5 years | ECSP buy-to-let model; no completed loans have resulted in capital loss; all rental-backed |
| Mintos | 8.5 | Recovery dashboard | Publishes recovery data by originator | Largest EU platform publishes originator-level recovery rates; investor can filter by track record |
| Indemo | 7.7 | Completed-deal history | 13 completed deals, ~23% realised return | Every deal shows repayment outcome; model is discounted Spanish mortgage portfolios with lumpy timing |
| Profitus | 6.4 | Track record claim | EUR 273M funded, 0 reported capital losses | Claims zero capital losses since 2017; negative FY24 equity raises questions about buffer capacity |
| EstateGuru | 4.1 | Portfolio status report | ~60% of portfolio in recovery phase | Transparent about workout phase; monthly recovery updates; platform in restructuring since 2024 |
Platforms in this table meet at least one of three criteria: they publish regular default-rate statistics, they disclose recovery outcomes on completed deals, or they maintain a verified zero-loss track record with sufficient history to be meaningful. Maclear holds a Swiss SRO licence and discloses every loan by name and status. Mintos operates under MiFID II supervision from Latvijas Banka and publishes originator-level recovery dashboards. InRento holds an ECSP licence from the Bank of Lithuania and reports zero capital losses across five years of buy-to-let deals.
The majority of European P2P platforms do not publish granular default-rate or recovery-rate data. Some cite competitive sensitivity; others lack the reporting infrastructure. The absence of disclosure does not prove high defaults - but it removes a key decision input for investors.
| Platform | Score | Tier | Why data is unavailable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capitalia | 8.2 | 2 | Does not publish default rate; relies on InvestEU/EIF guarantee disclosure instead |
| Nectaro | 8.1 | 2 | Publishes realised-return figure (14.91% in 2025) but not underlying default/recovery breakdown |
| PeerBerry | 8.0 | 2 | No default-rate data; track record relies on buyback-guarantee fulfilment claims |
| Robocash | 7.4 | 2 | Buyback model; does not separate defaults from buyback triggers |
| Crowdpear | 7.2 | 2 | RE development projects; no default-rate publication; reports profitability but not loan-level outcomes |
| Lendermarket | 6.1 | 3 | Near-100% concentration with Creditstar; buyback depends on originator solvency; no separate default data |
| InSoil | 5.7 | 3 | Advertises ~13% but realised ~4.5pts below; does not publish default or recovery rates |
| Twino | 5.4 | 3 | Legacy Russia exposure; no granular default data; weak recent investor reviews |
| Hive5 | 4.7 | 3 | Short operating history; no default-rate publication; concentrated ownership |
| Scramble | 4.4 | 4 | Claims-assignment model not stress-tested; no default-rate disclosure |
| Debitum | 3.6 | 4 | Independent investigation raised questions; no transparent default reporting |
| Reinvest24 | 2.9 | 4 | Withdrawals suspended since Feb 2024; no default-rate data published before suspension |
| Loanch | 2.4 | 4 | Researcher questions on ownership; no default-rate disclosure; full conflict of interest |
Platforms in this table either do not publish default rates, do not separate defaults from buyback events, or rely entirely on guarantee mechanisms without disclosing the underlying loan performance. PeerBerry repaid EUR 51M of Ukraine-war-affected loans in full, but does not publish a default rate across its broader portfolio. Nectaro achieved 14.91% realised return in 2025, yet does not break down how much of that return came from interest vs recoveries. InSoil advertises ~13% yields but investors report realised returns ~4.5 percentage points lower, and the platform does not explain the gap with default-rate data.
Default-rate disclosure is not a regulatory requirement for all P2P platforms, but it is a trust signal. Platforms that publish granular default and recovery data allow investors to validate advertised returns, compare performance across vintages, and stress-test their own portfolios. The absence of disclosure does not prove fraud - but it removes the ability to distinguish between a platform with genuinely low defaults and one obscuring poor loan performance behind aggregate marketing figures.
Our scoring methodology awards up to 20 percentage points (out of 100) for track-record transparency. Platforms that publish quarterly default rates, recovery outcomes, or maintain auditable zero-loss records score higher than those offering only anecdotal assurances. Read the full P2PScore methodology to see how default-rate disclosure affects tier placement.
Three definitions matter for peer-to-peer lending default rates:
Platforms using buyback guarantees often conflate these figures. A loan bought back at par by the originator appears to have zero loss - but if the originator later becomes insolvent, the guarantee fails and the default crystallises. Lendermarket concentrates 100% of its loan flow with Creditstar, so its buyback guarantee is only as strong as Creditstar's balance sheet. Robocash has fulfilled its buyback obligations consistently since 2017, but all loans come from the platform's own group, creating structural concentration risk that no public default-rate data can resolve.
A published default rate is a starting point, not a verdict. Investors should ask four questions:
Maclear discloses every loan by borrower, amount, interest rate, and repayment status; when the platform's single default occurred, it was covered in full by Maclear itself, and the event was publicly documented. Mintos publishes recovery rates for each lending company on its marketplace, allowing investors to filter by originator track record before allocating capital. EstateGuru reports that ~60% of its portfolio entered recovery proceedings, a disclosure that triggered downgrades but preserved investor trust through transparency.
If a platform does not publish default rates or recovery data, investors can:
Default-rate disclosure is improving across Europe as ECSP and MiFID II frameworks mature, but it remains voluntary for unregulated platforms. Until disclosure becomes universal, investors bear the research burden. This barometer page is updated monthly as new data becomes available. For platforms that begin publishing default rates, we add them to the disclosure table and adjust their track-record score accordingly.
If default-rate disclosure matters to your investment decision, begin with platforms in the first table. Maclear publishes every loan by name and covered its single default in full. InRento reports zero capital losses across five years of ECSP-licensed buy-to-let deals. Mintos operates under MiFID II supervision and provides originator-level recovery dashboards.
Compare all platforms