Mintos vs PeerBerry 2026: Which P2P Marketplace?

Quick comparison table

Capital is at risk. Returns are not guaranteed. Investor compensation does not cover borrower defaults.

Mintos at a glance

Mintos operates the largest European retail loan marketplace, holding a MiFID II investment-firm licence from Latvijas Banka since 2015. The platform lists over 60 loan originators across consumer lending, business loans, real-estate finance and invoice discounting; investors buy notes or bonds representing claims on underlying borrower cash flows. Mintos reports over EUR 600 million in assets under management and advertises net yields of 9-11 percent after fees and estimated defaults.

The MiFID II licence brings up to EUR 20,000 investor compensation per claimant on eligible claims against the platform itself - but the scheme never covers borrower defaults, only platform insolvency or misappropriation of client funds. Mintos has handled multiple originator insolvencies since 2015, placing affected loans into workout queues where investors receive gradual recoveries as collateral is liquidated or borrowers repay. The platform charges no investor fees and earns originator commissions.

PeerBerry at a glance

PeerBerry launched in 2017 as a marketplace for consumer and leasing loans sourced from Aventus Group companies. The platform advertises approximately 11 percent net yields and requires a EUR 10 minimum deposit, making it accessible to small-balance retail investors. PeerBerry holds an ECSP registration pending final approval in Croatia, bringing European crowdfunding regulation once the transition is complete.

PeerBerry repaid EUR 51 million in Ukraine-war loans in full during 2022-2023, demonstrating the Aventus Group's capacity to honour buyback commitments under stress. The platform maintains 60-90 day buyback guarantees on defaulted loans, though the guarantee depends on the solvency of Aventus originators. A secondary market for notes is scheduled to launch in 2026, offering early-exit options. All loans on PeerBerry flow from Aventus Group entities, creating single-group originator concentration.

Returns compared

Mintos advertises 9-11 percent net yields across its product range, with higher rates on higher-risk consumer notes and lower rates on secured real-estate or invoice products. Realised returns depend on investor strategy, originator selection and workout recoveries when originators default. The platform publishes originator-level default statistics and historical recovery rates, allowing investors to model risk-adjusted returns.

PeerBerry advertises approximately 11 percent net yields, consistent with its focus on short-term consumer and leasing loans carrying 60-90 day buyback guarantees. Realised returns have tracked advertised rates closely since 2017, reflecting the Aventus Group's buyback performance. Investors who diversify across Aventus originators see stable monthly cash flows, though concentration in a single group means platform-wide returns depend on that group's credit performance and liquidity.

Regulation compared

Mintos holds a MiFID II investment-firm licence from Latvijas Banka, the central bank of Latvia, granting up to EUR 20,000 investor compensation per claimant on eligible claims against the platform. The scheme covers platform insolvency or misappropriation of client funds; it does not cover borrower defaults, originator insolvencies or market losses. MiFID II licences require platforms to maintain minimum capital, publish audited accounts, segregate client funds and report to a prudential supervisor.

PeerBerry holds an ECSP registration pending final approval in Croatia. The European Crowdfunding Service Provider regulation requires platforms to disclose loan-level risk, maintain conflict-of-interest policies and report to national regulators, but does not mandate investor compensation schemes or capital requirements as stringent as MiFID II. Once the ECSP transition is complete, PeerBerry will operate under the same regulatory framework as EU crowdlending peers such as Capitalia and InRento.

Risk compared

Mintos carries originator concentration risk across 60+ partners, with some originators contributing large shares of platform volume. When an originator defaults, affected loans enter workout queues; investors retain claims but face illiquidity and uncertain recovery timelines. The secondary market for notes offers early exit at a discount, though liquidity varies by loan type and originator health. Mintos does not guarantee buybacks; each originator sets its own terms.

PeerBerry carries single-group originator concentration: all loans flow from Aventus Group companies, meaning platform-wide performance depends on that group's credit risk and liquidity. The 60-90 day buyback guarantee mitigates individual loan defaults, but the guarantee itself depends on Aventus solvency. The EUR 51 million Ukraine-war repayment demonstrated the group's capacity to honour commitments under stress, though future crises could test that capacity again. The planned secondary market will reduce illiquidity risk once launched.

Which to choose?

Choose Mintos if you want: MiFID II investor compensation up to EUR 20,000 on eligible platform claims, diversification across 60+ originators and multiple asset classes, and a mature secondary market for notes. Mintos suits investors who accept illiquidity during originator defaults in exchange for regulatory protection and breadth of choice.

Choose PeerBerry if you want: consistent 11 percent yields backed by 60-90 day buyback guarantees, a track record of honouring EUR 51 million in war-affected commitments, and a low EUR 10 entry barrier. PeerBerry suits investors who accept single-group concentration in exchange for stable cash flows and demonstrated crisis performance.

Consider both if you want: exposure to two distinct regulatory models (MiFID II and ECSP), geographic diversification (Riga and Zagreb headquarters), and a blend of multi-originator breadth (Mintos) with single-group depth (PeerBerry). Investors who allocate to both platforms reduce single-point-of-failure risk while capturing the benefits of each model.

Frequently asked questions