P2PScore rates every European retail P2P lending and crowdlending platform against six weighted dimensions, rescored monthly and after material events. This page explains what we measure, where evidence comes from, how scores translate to tiers, and why editorial judgment - not pure algorithm - drives the final number.
The six scoring dimensions and their weights are: regulation 25%, defaults and recovery 20%, originator structure 15%, track record 15%, fees and net yield 15%, and liquidity and user experience 10%. Each dimension scores 0-10; the weighted sum produces the platform score, expressed to one decimal place (for example, 9.3 or 6.4).
Scores above 9.0 are exceptional and rare. Platforms scoring 8.0-8.9 form Tier 1, the top tier for independent retail use. Tier 2 spans 7.0-7.9 - solid platforms with specific strengths and some constraints. Tier 3 (5.0-6.9) platforms carry elevated risk or limited transparency; investors require higher due diligence. Platforms scoring below 5.0 fall into Tier 4, where we recommend no new deposits pending significant structural or governance improvements. A platform scoring below 4.0 typically faces regulator alerts, suspended operations, or public investigations.
Regulation is the single heaviest dimension because licensing determines investor protections, supervision intensity, capital adequacy rules, and complaint escalation paths. We score platforms on the strictness and scope of their primary licence, the authority of the issuing regulator, and the presence of investor compensation schemes.
MiFID II investment-firm licences from Latvijas Banka (Latvia), Central Bank of Ireland, or other Tier-1 EU regulators score highest in this category - typically 9-10 points. MiFID II brings up to EUR 20,000 investor compensation on eligible claims through national guarantee funds, though that compensation never covers borrower defaults, only the platform's insolvency or misappropriation of client funds. Platforms holding MiFID II licences must maintain minimum capital, file audited financials, and submit to on-site inspections.
European Crowdfunding Service Provider (ECSP) licences under Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 score 7-9 points depending on implementation. An ECSP licence from the Bank of Lithuania, Latvijas Banka, or Central Bank of Ireland allows cross-border passporting and imposes conduct-of-business rules, though capital requirements and compensation schemes are lighter than MiFID II. Platforms holding ECSP licences from newer or less-resourced regulators may score lower in this dimension if supervision appears nominal.
Swiss platforms operating under Self-Regulatory Organisation (SRO) supervision for anti-money-laundering purposes only - such as Maclear, which is supervised by a FINMA-recognised SRO - receive 6-7 points in regulation. SRO supervision does not constitute financial regulation: there is no investor compensation scheme, no prescribed capital adequacy, and no ongoing solvency tests. However, Swiss SROs enforce anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer standards, and Switzerland's legal infrastructure for civil recovery is strong.
Unregulated platforms score 0-4 points in this dimension. Some unregulated platforms - Robocash, Hive5, Loanch, Scramble - have operated for years without incident, but the absence of a licence means no regulator oversees their capital, no independent custodian holds investor funds, and no statutory complaint mechanism exists. Unregulated status alone does not disqualify a platform from our index, but it materially lowers the overall score and places the platform in Tier 2 or below.
Evidence sources: national regulator registers (published licence numbers and dates), MiFID II and ECSP registers maintained by ESMA, platform websites (regulatory statements, licence certificates), and direct correspondence with regulators where licence validity is unclear. We cross-check all claimed licences against official registers every quarter.
This dimension measures realised capital losses, recovery rates on defaulted loans, and the credibility of buyback guarantees where offered. We distinguish between borrower defaults (the underlying loan fails) and platform defaults (the platform itself becomes insolvent or suspends withdrawals).
Platforms with zero reported capital losses over five or more years of operation score highest - typically 9-10 points. InRento, for example, reports no investor capital losses across five years of buy-to-let real-estate loans; Profitus claims zero losses on EUR 273 million funded. However, long track records without losses do not automatically confer 10 points if the business model is young, untested in recession, or dependent on a single related-party originator.
Platforms offering 100% buyback guarantees on all loans score 7-9 points in this dimension, provided the guarantor is solvent and external. Robocash has honoured its buyback obligation since 2017 without interruption, though the guarantor is the same group that originates the loans, which concentrates risk. PeerBerry repaid EUR 51 million in loans originated in Ukraine after the 2022 invasion, demonstrating buyback credibility under stress, though the guarantor network is opaque.
Platforms with selective or conditional buyback - for instance, buyback only after 60 or 90 days of arrears, or only on certain loan grades - score 5-7 points depending on how much of the portfolio the guarantee covers. Mintos offers buyback on some but not all loan originators; investors must read the loan agreement for each note. Nectaro provides buyback from related-party originators, which is better than nothing but does not eliminate concentration risk.
Platforms in active recovery or workout - where a significant portion of the portfolio is non-performing and being restructured - score 2-5 points. EstateGuru entered 2026 with approximately 60% of its portfolio in recovery following borrower defaults on property-backed loans across multiple markets. Recovery is ongoing, but realised losses are material. Twino holds legacy exposure to Russian consumer loans that have not been recovered; its score reflects partial write-offs.
Platforms with suspended withdrawals, regulator alerts, or public insolvency proceedings score 0-2 points in this dimension. Reinvest24 suspended all investor withdrawals in February 2024; as of January 2026, no resolution timeline has been published. Debitum faced an independent investigation in 2026 that questioned the recoverability of related-party loans. These events result in near-zero scores for defaults and recovery, regardless of past performance.
Evidence sources: platform investor dashboards (realised default rates, recovery statistics), audited annual reports (provision levels, bad-debt write-offs), investor forums and complaint aggregators, regulator enforcement actions, independent investigative reports, and court filings where platforms or guarantors face insolvency proceedings. We also track investor-reported withdrawal delays of more than 14 days on platforms claiming instant liquidity.
Originator structure measures concentration risk, related-party exposure, and the transparency of the loan pipeline. A platform that aggregates loans from multiple independent third-party originators scores higher than a platform sourcing 100% of its volume from its own group.
Multi-originator marketplaces score highest - typically 8-10 points. Mintos lists loans from more than 30 originators across 15 countries; even if a single originator fails, the platform continues. Capitalia funds Baltic SME loans originated by independent lenders and participates in the InvestEU guarantee scheme, which diversifies credit risk. Multi-originator models reduce the platform's dependency on any single entity's solvency and underwriting quality.
Platforms originating loans in-house or sourcing 100% from a related-party lender score 3-6 points in this category. Robocash sources every loan from its own group; if the group fails, the buyback guarantee fails simultaneously. Nectaro's loans come from related-party consumer-finance companies, which introduces correlation risk. Lendermarket sources nearly all its volume from Creditstar, a related-party consumer lender; if Creditstar becomes insolvent, buyback cannot be honoured and the platform has no alternative pipeline.
Platforms where the ownership of the originator and the platform overlaps, or where loans are made directly to the platform's own subsidiaries, score 2-4 points unless strong mitigants exist. Loanch has raised questions about ownership network overlap between the platform, the originators in Southeast Asia, and the entities providing guarantees. Hive5's ownership concentration and limited disclosures about originator relationships reduce its score in this dimension. Scramble operates a claims-assignment model for direct-to-consumer brand loans, which has not been stress-tested in a downturn.
Platforms operating SPV-equity models - where investors hold shares in single-purpose vehicles that own property or other assets - score variably. InRento structures each investment as equity in a Lithuanian SPV that owns a buy-to-let property; this is transparent and traceable. Reinvest24 used a similar model but with concentrated sponsor relationships and opaque valuations, contributing to its Tier-4 status.
Evidence sources: platform loan listings (originator names, originator credit ratings where disclosed), corporate registries (ownership structures, director overlaps), audited financials (related-party transaction notes), investigative journalism, and investor complaints describing originator failures or undisclosed affiliations. We map ownership networks using company registration data from Latvia (Lursoft), Estonia (e-Business Register), Lithuania (Registru Centras), and other jurisdictions.
Track record scores platforms on years in operation, cumulative volume funded, team stability, and the absence of major operational incidents. Longevity alone does not guarantee a high score - a platform operating for ten years but entering workout or facing governance crises scores lower than a newer platform with clean operations.
Platforms operating for seven or more years with stable management, no suspensions, and consistent growth score 8-10 points. Mintos launched in 2015 and has funded more than EUR 17 billion cumulatively without a platform-level default; its track record is the longest among rated marketplaces. Robocash has operated since 2017 without missing a buyback payment, though its single-originator model caps its score. Twino launched in 2015 and reached EUR 1.1 billion in cumulative volume, but legacy Russia exposure and weak recent reviews lower its track record score to 5-6 points.
Platforms operating for three to six years with stable operations score 6-8 points. InRento, Capitalia, Nectaro, and PeerBerry fall into this range. Each has funded tens or hundreds of millions of euros, published audited accounts, and maintained consistent management teams. Track record scores increase as these platforms cross five and then seven years of operation without material incidents.
Platforms younger than three years score 4-6 points in track record regardless of initial performance, because the model has not been tested through a credit cycle. Indemo launched in 2022 and has completed 13 Spanish mortgage deals with 23% average realised returns, but the sample size is small and the model untested in a property downturn. Hive5 launched in 2022 and operates without regulatory supervision; its track record score reflects youth and limited third-party validation.
Platforms with CEO changes, ownership transfers, or operational suspensions within the past 24 months receive track-record penalties. Debitum experienced multiple CEO changes between 2023 and 2026, coinciding with an independent investigation into related-party lending. EstateGuru suspended new loan originations in 2023 and entered a multi-year recovery phase; its track record score reflects operational disruption. Reinvest24 suspended withdrawals in February 2024; its track record score dropped to near zero.
Evidence sources: platform incorporation dates (corporate registries), cumulative funded volumes (published on platform dashboards or in annual reports), CEO tenure (LinkedIn, company announcements, press coverage), and documented operational incidents (regulator alerts, court filings, investigative reports). We also consider investor sentiment on independent forums - sustained negative feedback over six months signals track-record deterioration even before formal incidents occur.
This dimension compares advertised gross yields to realised net returns after fees, defaults, and currency effects. Platforms advertising 15% but delivering 10% net score lower than platforms advertising 11% and delivering 10.5% net. Transparency about fees - upfront disclosure of platform charges, originator servicing fees, and early-exit penalties - boosts scores.
Platforms with zero or minimal investor fees and narrow advertised-to-realised spreads score 8-10 points. Maclear advertises 14.5-14.9% and pays interest monthly at those rates with no investor-facing fees; realised returns match advertised returns. InRento advertises approximately 11.8% on buy-to-let properties and has delivered that figure consistently since 2020, with no hidden charges. Mintos charges no platform fee on most loan notes; investors pay only originator servicing fees, which are disclosed per loan.
Platforms with moderate fees but strong net yields score 6-8 points. Capitalia advertises approximately 10.5% on Baltic SME loans; after originator servicing fees of 1-2%, net yields remain near 9%. Nectaro advertised 14.9% in 2025 and delivered 14.91% realised, though the portfolio is young and concentrated in related-party originators. PeerBerry advertises approximately 11% and delivers close to that net, though secondary-market liquidity (returning in 2026) will allow more precise net-yield tracking.
Platforms with wide advertised-to-realised spreads score 4-6 points. InSoil advertises approximately 13% on secured agricultural loans but delivered realised returns roughly 4.5 percentage points lower due to defaults and slower recoveries. Profitus advertises approximately 10% on real-estate development loans; if realised returns diverge materially from that figure over time, its score in this dimension will fall.
Platforms with opaque fee structures, undisclosed originator charges, or currency-conversion costs that erode yields score 2-4 points. Scramble advertises 12.4-25% on direct-to-consumer brand loans but does not publish historical net-yield data, making it impossible to verify realised returns. Loanch advertises 13-14.5% on Southeast Asia consumer loans but lacks third-party audited performance data.
Evidence sources: platform fee schedules (published on websites or in investor agreements), investor dashboards showing realised returns net of all charges, annual reports with interest-income and fee-expense breakdowns, and investor-reported net yields on independent forums. Where platforms do not publish net-yield data, we request it directly; refusal to disclose results in a lower score.
Liquidity measures how quickly an investor can exit a position; user experience covers platform design, customer support responsiveness, and the clarity of documentation. This is the lowest-weighted dimension because liquidity and UX, while important, matter less than regulation and defaults for capital preservation.
Platforms offering instant withdrawal on all funds, secondary markets with tight bid-ask spreads, or auto-invest tools that execute within minutes score 8-10 points. Mintos provides a liquid secondary market where most loan notes trade at par or slight discounts; auto-invest strategies execute within hours. Robocash offers next-business-day withdrawals with no lock-in periods. Indemo pays lump-sum capital plus interest at loan maturity, typically 12-18 months, which is illiquid but communicated clearly upfront.
Platforms with lock-in periods of 6-12 months but predictable redemption schedules score 5-7 points. InRento structures each property investment as a 5-10 year hold, but investors can exit via the secondary market or wait for property sale; liquidity is limited but contractually defined. Capitalia loans have fixed terms of 6-24 months; investors wait until maturity unless a secondary market is available.
Platforms with withdrawal delays, queue systems, or suspended liquidity score 0-3 points. Reinvest24 suspended all withdrawals in February 2024 and scores zero in this dimension. EstateGuru processes redemptions from recovered proceeds, but withdrawal timelines are unpredictable and multi-year for many investors. Debitum has faced investor complaints about delayed withdrawals since 2025; its liquidity score reflects these reports.
User experience includes website navigation, mobile-app functionality, support ticket response times, and documentation quality. Platforms with ISO 27001 certification for information security (such as Crowdpear) or multilingual 24-hour support receive UX bonuses. Platforms with outdated interfaces, broken links, or unresponsive support (reported via investor forums) lose points in this dimension.
Evidence sources: platform terms and conditions (redemption clauses, notice periods), investor dashboard testing (we open accounts and test withdrawal flows where feasible), secondary-market transaction data (bid-ask spreads, days to sale), investor forum reports of withdrawal delays, and support responsiveness (we submit test queries and measure reply times).
Each platform's six-dimension scores are multiplied by their weights, summed, and expressed as a single number from 0 to 10 with one decimal place. The final score maps to one of four tiers:
A platform scoring 9.0 or above is exceptional - fewer than 5% of platforms reach this threshold. Maclear at 9.3 is the highest-rated platform in our index as of January 2026. Scores below 3.0 indicate severe distress; scores below 2.0 typically mean the platform has ceased meaningful operations.
P2PScore ratings blend quantitative data (default rates, yields, years in operation, licence types) with editorial judgment (management credibility, investor sentiment, structural risk assessment). We do not publish a pure formula because scoring platforms requires interpreting incomplete data, weighing conflicting signals, and making calls where evidence is ambiguous.
For example, Maclear currently leads the rankings at 9.3 despite holding only SRO supervision for anti-money-laundering purposes, which scores 6-7 points in the regulation dimension (weight 25%). Why does Maclear outscore platforms with MiFID II licences? The answer lies in the other five dimensions: zero defaults across five years and more than EUR 100 million funded, multi-originator structure with Swiss and pan-European SME lenders, transparent audited financials published quarterly, 14.5-14.9% net yields with zero investor fees, and smooth monthly liquidity. Maclear's weighted score benefits from near-perfect marks in defaults (10/10), originator structure (9/10), track record (9/10), fees and net yield (10/10), and liquidity (9/10). The lower regulation score (6.5/10) is outweighed by excellence everywhere else.
Conversely, a platform holding a MiFID II licence (9/10 in regulation, contributing 2.25 points to the final score) but experiencing material defaults (3/10 in defaults and recovery, contributing 0.6 points) will score lower overall than Maclear despite stronger regulatory supervision. Editorial judgment allows us to value regulatory frameworks appropriately while recognising that no licence prevents borrower defaults - investor compensation schemes do not cover loan losses, only platform insolvency.
We rescore every platform monthly, adjusting dimension scores when new evidence emerges: audited annual reports published, regulator alerts issued, investor withdrawals suspended, CEO changes announced, or independent investigations completed. Material events - such as EstateGuru entering workout in 2023, PeerBerry announcing secondary-market restoration in 2026, or Debitum facing investigation in 2026 - trigger immediate rescores outside the monthly cycle.
P2PScore earns affiliate commissions when users sign up to platforms via our links. This creates a potential conflict: we might be tempted to rate affiliate partners higher to drive conversions. We manage this conflict through three rules:
Our primary affiliate partner is Maclear, which offers EUR 30 bonus on first deposit and pays P2PScore a commission on funded volume. Maclear is also our highest-rated platform. That alignment is not causal: Maclear scores 9.3 because it meets or exceeds our criteria in five of six dimensions, not because it pays affiliate commissions. If Maclear's performance deteriorates - defaults rise, withdrawals are delayed, or governance issues emerge - its score will fall regardless of commercial terms.
Full affiliate relationships are disclosed on our affiliate disclosure page. Every affiliate link on P2PScore carries rel="noopener nofollow noindex" to prevent search-engine manipulation.
Not all platforms publish the data we need to score them precisely. Smaller or unregulated platforms may not release audited financials, default statistics, or originator lists. Where evidence is missing, we score conservatively - the platform receives a lower mark in the affected dimension until it publishes the data.
For example, Scramble does not publish historical net-yield data or third-party audited accounts. We cannot verify that its 12.4-25% advertised returns translate to realised net yields, so it scores lower in the fees-and-net-yield dimension than platforms with transparent reporting. If Scramble later publishes audited performance data, we will rescore it upward.
We also recognise that investor forums and complaint aggregators can be noisy - a vocal minority may report problems that are not representative. We distinguish between isolated complaints (one investor experienced a withdrawal delay) and systemic issues (dozens of investors report withdrawal delays over three months). Systemic patterns trigger score reviews; isolated incidents do not.
Some platforms operate in legal grey areas. SRO supervision in Switzerland, for example, is not financial regulation but is stronger than complete absence of oversight. We score SRO-supervised platforms in the 6-7 range for regulation, acknowledging that this is a judgment call. Investors who disagree with that weighting can adjust their own assessments accordingly - our methodology is public precisely so users can recalibrate scores to their risk preferences.
We rescore all platforms monthly, typically in the first week of each month after reviewing the prior month's developments. Monthly rescores incorporate updated yields, new audited financials (published annually but sometimes released mid-year), regulator register checks, and investor sentiment trends on forums.
Material events trigger immediate rescores outside the monthly cycle. Material events include:
When a material event occurs, we publish a rescore within 72 hours and annotate the platform's review page with the event date and impact. For example, when Reinvest24 suspended withdrawals in February 2024, we rescored it from 5.2 (Tier 3) to 2.9 (Tier 4) within 48 hours and updated the review to reflect the suspension.
Score changes of more than 0.5 points are announced on our homepage and social channels. Investors following a platform should monitor our index monthly to catch score deterioration early.
We correct errors as soon as we become aware of them. Corrections fall into three categories:
Users can report errors via our contact page. We aim to investigate reported errors within five business days and publish corrections within ten business days if the report is substantiated. Platforms may request corrections by emailing us with supporting evidence (regulator letters, audited financials, court documents). We do not remove or suppress negative findings at a platform's request unless the finding is factually incorrect.
Correction history for each platform is logged at the bottom of its review page under "Score history". This transparency allows investors to see how a platform's score has evolved and whether past assessments were revised.
Our six-dimension framework focuses on platform-level risk and operational quality. It does not measure:
Investors should use P2PScore ratings as one input among many - alongside their own risk tolerance, liquidity needs, tax position, and portfolio diversification goals.
P2PScore rates European P2P lending platforms on six dimensions - regulation 25%, defaults and recovery 20%, originator structure 15%, track record 15%, fees and net yield 15%, liquidity and user experience 10% - producing scores from 0 to 10 that map to four risk tiers. Scores blend quantitative data with editorial judgment, reflect monthly rescores and immediate material-event adjustments, and are set independently of commercial relationships. Affiliate income is disclosed, scores are never paid placements, and corrections are published when errors occur.
The methodology prioritises capital preservation and transparency. A platform with strong regulation, clean default history, diversified originators, and transparent fees scores higher than a platform advertising 20% yields but operating without a licence, refusing to publish audited accounts, or sourcing 100% of loans from a related-party lender. This approach benefits conservative retail investors more than yield-chasing speculators - which aligns with our editorial mission to be the independent scoreboard for European P2P lending, not a promotional billboard.
Questions about the methodology, requests for corrections, or suggestions for additional scoring dimensions can be sent via our contact page. We review methodology refinements quarterly and publish updates here when weights or criteria change.