It has been some time since I updated the P2P comparison table. This article is about changes I made in crowdlending comparison table.
Most dedicated readers have probably noticed that now I use the term crowdlending instead of P2P lending. I do it to be more precise because I summarize information about both types of platforms – P2P and P2B.
Aim for the updates is to improve the transparency on risk and change weights for yields and total invested volumes in different platforms.
This is the previous comparison table version:
- Updated figures of annual percentage yields and total invested volumes
- Replaced Relative investment security with Buyback guarantee and Collateral, personal guarantees & other columns to increase the transparency of risk evaluation.
- Changed total points given for Average interest rates and risk assessment (Buyback guarantee and Collateral, personal guarantees & other) to 20. Highest gets assigned 20 points and the lowest gets 0. The rest are given number in between according to the proportion of amounts.
- Added Reinvest24 to the comparison list.
- In beginning of July – added “mil. EUR” for invested volume column figures to make it more obvious.
- Changed the layout of the table due extra columns to improve the usability.
Here you can see the change in scores. All are increased except Bondora (-2).
After changing weights for invested volumes, more realistic view showed itself. All platforms combined does not reach Mintos total volume.
Mintos – 2.811 billion EUR
Rest of the platforms – 1.903 billion EUR
In fact the rest combined, is only around 68% of the top one. This is a good reflection on what investors consider most reliable. If you want more information on Mintos individual loan originator scoring you can check this useful resource.
Finally, I thank you all for contributing with feedback for crowdlending comparison. As previously, please let me know if you see more space for improvement. Any comments are much welcome.