Methodology for evaluating P2P platforms

Fixed criteria and weights

Every platform is assessed on the same 1–10 scale using seven fixed weighted criteria. Applying one framework to every platform makes the results easier to compare and prevents the criteria from being changed to favour a particular business model.

1. Regulation and protection — 25%
2. Track record and resilience — 20%
3. Transparency — 15%
4. Diversification — 12%
5. Liquidity — 10%
6. Returns — 10%
7. Fees and costs — 8%

The weights total 100%. Structural factors receive the greatest weight, while returns are only one part of the overall assessment.

How scores from 1 to 10 are assigned

For each criterion, 1 indicates material weaknesses or insufficient verifiable information, 5 indicates a mixed profile with important limitations, and 10 indicates very strong coverage of that specific criterion. Intermediate values represent the position between these reference points.

Regulation and protection — 25%

1: no applicable licence and weak contractual safeguards. 5: partial regulatory coverage or safeguards with important limitations. 10: clear applicable licensing, supervision, segregation of client funds and strong legal protection mechanisms.

Track record and resilience — 20%

1: a short or troubled history with insufficient financial evidence. 5: an established operation, but with incomplete data or periods of material difficulty. 10: a long record, sustainable business model, stable results and demonstrated resilience during market stress.

Transparency — 15%

1: sparse, outdated or difficult-to-verify information. 5: core terms are available, but important reports, statistics or details are missing. 10: clear agreements, current statistics, financial reports, ownership information and timely risk communication.

Diversification — 12%

1: strong concentration in one lender, group, country or asset type. 5: some choice, but with important shared risk factors. 10: broad and genuinely independent exposure across lenders, markets, countries, terms and asset types.

Liquidity — 10%

1: funds are normally locked until maturity with no practical exit. 5: a secondary market or withdrawal mechanism exists, but with restrictions, delays or dependence on demand. 10: a reliable and prompt exit under clear terms and at low cost.

Returns — 10%

1: weak realised returns relative to risk, or frequent losses and delays. 5: moderate returns with meaningful differences between quoted and realised results. 10: competitive and sustainable net returns supported by sufficient historical evidence. A high advertised rate alone does not produce a high score.

Fees and costs — 8%

1: high, unclear or unpredictable costs. 5: main fees are disclosed, but costs can materially reduce the result. 10: a clear and verifiable structure with low or no fees for core operations.

Formula: (regulation and protection × 25%) + (track record and resilience × 20%) + (transparency × 15%) + (diversification × 12%) + (liquidity × 10%) + (returns × 10%) + (fees and costs × 8%). The final result is rounded to one decimal place.

Example: scores of 9, 8, 8, 7, 8, 8 and 9 respectively produce (9 × 0.25) + (8 × 0.20) + (8 × 0.15) + (7 × 0.12) + (8 × 0.10) + (8 × 0.10) + (9 × 0.08) = 8.21, published as 8.2/10.

When current and verifiable evidence is insufficient, a neutral score is not assigned automatically. The uncertainty affects the relevant criterion, especially transparency, and the assessment may be marked as provisional until reliable information becomes available.

The Score is an editorial comparison tool, not a credit rating, return guarantee or personalised investment recommendation.

Each assessment combines quantitative and qualitative factors. No single metric is used in isolation. Instead, the platform is considered as a whole, including its risk, returns, transparency and practical usability.

1. Real tests with personal funds

Where practical, platforms are also checked using personal funds. This makes it possible to observe actual behaviour, including returns, delays, liquidity and the overall user experience. If a platform has not been personally tested, the assessment relies on verifiable public sources and that limitation is taken into account.

First-hand experience helps identify characteristics that often cannot be established from public information or marketing materials alone.

2. Tracking returns

Returns are monitored over time, taking into account:

• nominal returns
• actual returns after delays
• the effect of buyback mechanisms
• liquidity and the time needed to exit
• the stability of results over time
• the impact of fees and additional costs

Higher returns are always considered together with risk. On their own, they are not enough to evaluate a platform.

3. Risk analysis

Risk is a key part of every platform assessment. I analyse:

• the financial position of loan originators
• regulation and licensing
• the history of arrears and defaults
• portfolio structure
• platform transparency
• risk concentration
• dependence on external partners
• available investor-protection mechanisms

The risk assessment is updated when new information becomes available or when material events affect the platform.

4. Reviewing public documents

Where available, I review annual reports, audit reports, financial results and other public information.

Particular attention is paid to revenue, profit or loss, debt, business growth and the company’s ability to maintain a sustainable model.

These data supplement real-world observations rather than serving as the sole basis for an assessment.

5. Practical platform testing

I test the interface, automated strategies, support quality and the platform’s overall ease of use.

I also consider features such as a secondary market, auto-invest, statistics, data transparency and transaction speed.

These observations provide context for liquidity, transparency, fees and operational resilience. User experience is not a separate eighth criterion and has no independent weight.

6. Comparing platforms

Platforms are compared using key criteria such as returns, risk, liquidity, transparency and stability over time.

The purpose of these comparisons is to provide context, not to declare one universally best platform. The right platform depends on each investor’s individual profile.

7. Regular news monitoring

News, regulatory changes, financial reports and events that could affect the platforms are checked periodically. The frequency depends on the availability of new information and the significance of the event.

This includes new licences, changes to business models, acquisitions, liquidity problems and changes to investor terms.

8. Updating assessments

Assessments change when new information becomes available. This includes financial results, changes in company structure or events that affect risk.

The aim is for the information to reflect the platform’s current position, rather than only a historical snapshot.

Limitations of the methodology

Every assessment contains an element of personal judgement. Some factors can be measured precisely, while others require interpretation of the available information.

For this reason, different analysts may reach different conclusions about the same platform.

Purpose of the methodology

The aim is to provide a consistent and transparent approach to analysing P2P platforms. It is not an investment recommendation and does not guarantee results.

The methodology serves as an evaluation framework and helps explain the factors that affect risk and potential returns.

Contact

If you have a question about the methodology, you can contact me at:

info@p2pinvestitor.eu