P2P Investitor Score 2026: an editorial platform comparison
This page compares PeerBerry, Robocash, Income, Iuvo, TWINO, Swaper, Esketit, Mintos, Bondora and Afranga using seven fixed weighted criteria: regulation and protection, track record and resilience, transparency, diversification, liquidity, returns, and fees and costs. The score presents an editorial assessment under a predefined framework. It does not identify a universally “best” platform or measure the probability of loss.
Important: The model is intended for comparison, not as an investment recommendation. Review the current terms, official documents and the level of loss you can tolerate.
All ten reviewed platforms are included under the same methodology.
Methodology note: the results are editorial assessments based on public documents and observations as of 19 July 2026. A lack of sufficiently verifiable information reduces the transparency score.
10
platforms assessed under one comparison framework
7
fixed criteria with a combined weight of 100%
10/10
maximum score for easier comparison
How the P2P Investitor Score is calculated
The model uses seven consistently applied criteria with fixed weights of 25%, 20%, 15%, 12%, 10%, 10% and 8%. The weighted total is rounded to one decimal place.
1. Regulation and protection · 25%
Licensing, regulatory supervision, legal structure, client-asset safeguards and contractual protection mechanisms.
2. Track record and resilience · 20%
Operating history, behaviour under market stress, financial and operational resilience, delays and fulfilment of commitments.
3. Transparency · 15%
Contracts, audited reports, arrears statistics, ownership, timeliness and verifiability of public information.
4. Diversification · 12%
Loan originators, corporate groups, countries, loan types and shared sources of buyback or guarantee payments.
5. Liquidity · 10%
Maturities, secondary markets, withdrawal limits and documented cases of delayed or partial payments.
6. Returns · 10%
Published rates, accrual conditions, available historical data and the concentration risks associated with higher yields.
7. Fees and costs · 8%
Investing, secondary-market, withdrawal and currency-conversion fees, plus other costs affecting the net result.
Scale, formula and sources
What it measures
A comparative editorial assessment using seven consistently applied criteria with fixed weights.
How it is calculated
The seven scores are multiplied by their fixed weights of 25/20/15/12/10/10/8% and the result is rounded to one decimal place.
What it does not mean
The Score is not a credit rating, safety guarantee, return forecast or personalised recommendation.
1–3Material limitations or insufficient information
4–6Mixed assessment with important limitations
7–8Good coverage with material risks
9–10Strong coverage of the specific criterion
Formula: regulation and protection × 25% + track record and resilience × 20% + transparency × 15% + diversification × 12% + liquidity × 10% + returns × 10% + fees and costs × 8%. The weights total 100%, and the result is rounded to one decimal place.
We use official terms, risk warnings, regulatory registers, financial reports and platform statistics. A lack of public or current data is reflected in the “Transparency” criterion. The detailed process is also described in the site's methodology.
Key reference sources: ESMA – investment services and crowdfunding.
Overall platform scores
The overall score is the weighted result of the seven fixed criteria. It does not measure the probability of loss or determine suitability for a particular investor.
Transition note: the overall values below are retained from the previously published table. The old five-criterion numerical breakdown has been removed because it cannot be converted reliably into the seven criteria. Before the next update, the totals must be recalculated from complete assessments under the new weighted framework.
| Platform | Overall score | Comparison profile |
|---|---|---|
| MintosBroad selection and regulated Notes | 8.9 / 10 | Compare when broad choice is the priority |
| PeerBerrySimple interface and group concentration | 8.8 / 10 | Compare when automation is the priority |
| Bondora Go&GrowSimplified product with withdrawal limitations | 8.8 / 10 | Compare when a simple interface is the priority |
| IncomeContractual safeguards and lender risk | 8.4 / 10 | Compare contractual protection mechanisms |
| RobocashAutomation and group concentration | 8.3 / 10 | Compare when automated investing is the priority |
| AfrangaECSP licence and business-credit risk | 8.2 / 10 | Compare when focusing on business loans |
| EsketitHigher quoted rates and concentration | 8.1 / 10 | Compare where greater concentration is acceptable |
| IuvoFamiliar interface and multiple lenders | 7.9 / 10 | Compare when seeking different lenders |
| SwaperSimple interface and concentration | 7.8 / 10 | Compare when ease of use is the priority |
| TWINOLower editorial assessment of liquidity | 7.5 / 10 | Compare with a focus on reporting and structure |
Overall P2P Investitor Score under the seven-criterion framework
PeerBerry
8.8 / 10Bondora Go&Grow
8.8 / 10Income
8.4 / 10Robocash
8.3 / 10Afranga
8.2 / 10Esketit
8.1 / 10Iuvo
7.9 / 10Swaper
7.8 / 10TWINO
7.5 / 10Comparison by scenario
Practical scenario: simplicity
Bondora Go&Grow offers a simplified interface and management. This is qualitative context outside the seven weighted criteria and does not remove the risk of loss or the possibility of delayed or partial withdrawals.
Practical comparison: diversification
Mintos offers a broad range of products and lenders. Individual exposures remain subject to credit and liquidity risk, and the criterion must be reassessed under the seven-factor framework.
Practical scenario: automation
PeerBerry and Robocash offer automated processes. This is qualitative context outside the seven weighted criteria; concentration and dependence on lending groups should be assessed separately.
Practical comparison: quoted returns
Esketit, Income and PeerBerry publish comparatively higher rates. This is not a forecast of realised returns and does not include a guarantee against losses.
Practical comparison: concentration
PeerBerry combines a straightforward product with material group concentration and more limited diversification, which remain important constraints.
Additional platforms to compare
Iuvo and Swaper can be included in the comparison, but adding another platform does not guarantee genuine diversification, particularly where lenders are related or share common risk factors.
How to use this score sensibly
Use the score only as a starting point for further research:
- when simplicity is a priority, compare liquidity terms and withdrawal restrictions;
- when seeking diversification, check corporate relationships and shared sources of payment;
- where quoted rates are higher, review arrears, reports and concentration;
- read the official agreements and risk warnings before making a decision.
The number of platforms alone does not determine the quality of diversification. Set limits in advance by platform, lender, corporate group and country, and do not invest funds you may need before maturity.
Important risk warning: P2P investments are not bank deposits. Arrears, illiquidity and a partial or total loss of capital are possible. The editorial score does not guarantee returns or safety.
Frequently asked questions
Which platform is number one?
There is no universal number one. The Score compares platforms under the same weighted framework but does not determine which platform is suitable for a particular person.
Does a higher score mean lower risk?
No. A higher result is a weighted editorial assessment across seven fixed criteria, not a measure of the probability or size of a future loss.
Should I invest through only one platform?
Concentration in a single operator increases platform risk, but adding more platforms does not guarantee diversification. Check whether the lenders, owners and sources of payment are genuinely independent.
How often should I review the score?
It is practical to review your portfolio and assumptions quarterly or whenever there is a material change in interest rates, liquidity, platform terms or regulation.