According to the re:think P2P Risk Score, the safest P2P lending platforms in 2026 are InRento (8.4 / 10), Nectaro (8.0), Crowdpear (7.8), LANDE (7.7) and PeerBerry (7.6). The score rates 31 European P2P lending platforms across five categories: regulation and license, financial stability, transparency and disclosure, loan portfolio and investor losses, and track record and crisis behavior. Important: even the supposedly safest P2P platform remains a high-risk investment.
The Ranking at a Glance
The table shows all 31 rated P2P platforms, sorted by their current Safety Score. The scores are updated continuously as soon as new information becomes available.
| # | Platform | Reg. | Fin. | Tra. | Loan | Track | RF | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | InRento | 15 | 15 | 15 | 25 | 14 | 0 | 8.4 |
| 2 | Nectaro | 15 | 14 | 15 | 25 | 11 | 0 | 8.0 |
| 3 | Crowdpear | 15 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 13 | 0 | 7.8 |
| 4 | LANDE | 15 | 15 | 15 | 17 | 15 | 0 | 7.7 |
| 5 | PeerBerry | 0 | 11 | 15 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 7.6 |
| 6 | TWINO | 15 | 18 | 5 | 17 | 10 | 0 | 6.5 |
| 6 | Profitus | 15 | 0 | 15 | 14 | 21 | 0 | 6.5 |
| 8 | Afranga | 15 | 0 | 10 | 25 | 14 | 0 | 6.4 |
| 8 | Lendermarket | 15 | 12 | 15 | 20 | 14 | -12 | 6.4 |
| 10 | Digilo | 15 | 0 | 15 | 25 | 8 | 0 | 6.3 |
| 11 | Mintos | 15 | 16 | 15 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 6.2 |
| 11 | NEO Finance | 10 | 16 | 10 | 5 | 21 | 0 | 6.2 |
| 11 | Income Marketplace | 0 | 8 | 15 | 20 | 19 | 0 | 6.2 |
| 14 | Debitum | 15 | 18 | 15 | 20 | 11 | -19 | 6.0 |
| 14 | Indemo | 15 | 13 | 8 | 10 | 14 | 0 | 6.0 |
| 16 | InSoil Finance | 15 | 11 | 15 | 8 | 15 | -7 | 5.7 |
| 16 | Robocash | 0 | 0 | 15 | 25 | 24 | -7 | 5.7 |
| 18 | Modena | 0 | 15 | 8 | 25 | 8 | 0 | 5.6 |
| 19 | Bondora | 0 | 20 | 15 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 5.5 |
| 19 | Fintown | 0 | 3 | 15 | 25 | 12 | 0 | 5.5 |
| 21 | Viainvest | 15 | 18 | 0 | 10 | 16 | -5 | 5.4 |
| 22 | Lonvest | 0 | 0 | 15 | 25 | 12 | 0 | 5.2 |
| 23 | Esketit | 0 | 0 | 15 | 25 | 13 | -5 | 4.8 |
| 23 | Monefit SmartSaver | 0 | 20 | 3 | 10 | 15 | 0 | 4.8 |
| 25 | Loanch | 0 | 0 | 15 | 25 | 9 | -10 | 3.9 |
| 26 | EstateGuru | 15 | 12 | 15 | 0 | 13 | -17 | 3.8 |
| 27 | Maclear | 5 | 0 | 8 | 10 | 17 | -21 | 1.9 |
| 28 | Crowdestor | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 10 | -7 | 1.8 |
| 29 | Bondster | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 1.3 |
| 30 | Hive5 | 0 | 14 | 8 | 10 | 14 | -34 | 1.2 |
| 31 | 7Harvests | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 8 | -17 | 0.1 |
How The Ranking System Works
The re:think P2P Risk Score rates platforms on a scale from 0 to 10 across five categories: regulation and license, financial stability, transparency and disclosure, loan portfolio and investor losses, and track record and crisis behavior. It is based on publicly verifiable primary sources. The full methodology is documented on the P2P Platform Risk page.
The companies that actually owe you money are, in many cases, the loan originators behind the platforms. I rate their financial stability separately in the P2P Loan Originator Comparison.
1. InRento (8.4 / 10)
The top spot in the ranking of the safest P2P platforms currently belongs to InRento with 8.4 out of 10 points. The Lithuania-based crowdfunding platform, which has specialized in financing first-rank mortgage-secured buy-to-let loans since 2020, stands out for its licensing under the ECSP regulation, strong financials and the outstanding quality of its loan portfolio.
The only deductions are for the rather limited market experience, the lack of market size, and the fact that the platform has not yet had to endure a serious crisis in which it could truly prove itself.
2. Nectaro (8.0 / 10)
With 8.0 points, Nectaro takes second place in the Risk Score. The Latvia-based P2P platform, which belongs to the US company DYNINNO Group, has been supervised by the Latvian financial regulator since 2023 and is regulated under MiFID II. As with InRento, there have been no repayment difficulties or defaults at the loan originator level so far, allowing investors to reliably earn double-digit returns on the platform for several years now.
Investors should keep an eye on the dependency and the conflicts of interest within the group, as well as the platform’s lack of profitability and its still improvable audit standard.
3. Crowdpear (7.8 / 10)
Crowdpear reaches third place in the rating of the safest P2P platforms with 7.8 points. Much like InRento, the platform is based in Lithuania and licensed under the European Crowdfunding Regulation.
While investors have not had to bear any losses so far, several loans are currently in the debt collection process. The portfolio quality therefore still has potential for improvement.
4. LANDE (7.7 / 10)
Fourth place currently goes to LANDE with 7.7 points. The Latvia-based platform, which specializes in agricultural loans, is also one of the safer alternatives in the current P2P market. The reasons are its ECSP license, strong financials, and a high degree of transparency and disclosure.
At LANDE, too, the quality of the loan portfolio still leaves room for optimization, particularly in the handling of loans in the debt collection process.
5. PeerBerry (7.6 / 10)
PeerBerry completes the top 5 of the safest P2P platforms with 7.6 points. The Croatia-based P2P marketplace is one of the largest and most established providers in the entire industry in terms of operating history, number of investors and assets under management. In addition, with the recovery of 50+ million euros in war-affected loans, PeerBerry has impressively demonstrated what strong and responsible crisis management looks like.
An even better result is denied to PeerBerry only because it is the only platform in the top 5 that is not regulated, meaning there is no institutional protection framework for investors.
What “Safe” Means In P2P Lending
P2P loans are not covered by any deposit guarantee scheme. Unlike a savings account, there is no state protection mechanism that catches your capital in an emergency. A high Safety Score therefore does not mean that a platform is safe – it means that it carries the comparatively lowest risks within a high-risk asset class.
In addition, the score is only a snapshot based on the chosen criteria, weightings and available data at the time being. Regardless of the ranking, investments should be made carefully and within your personal risk tolerance.
How P2P lending works in general, which risks exist and what the buyback guarantee really delivers is explained in detail in my P2P Lending Guide.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is P2P lending safe?
No. P2P lending is a high-risk asset class in which a total loss is possible in the worst case. However, the risks differ considerably from platform to platform. And it is precisely these differences that the re:think P2P Risk Score makes measurable.
Which P2P lending platform is the safest?
As of the current re:think P2P Risk Score, InRento leads the ranking with 8.4 out of 10 points, ahead of Nectaro (8.0) and Crowdpear (7.8).
How often is this ranking updated?
Continuously. As soon as new annual reports, regulatory decisions or relevant incidents become available, they are factored into the rating. The date of the last update is shown at the top of this page.
I’m Denny Neidhardt, the founder of re:think P2P. On this blog, I help retail investors make smarter, well-informed investment decisions in the world of P2P lending. Since 2019, I’ve been publishing in-depth analyses, platform reviews, and risk assessments to bring more transparency to this investment space. My goal is to challenge marketing claims, question developments, and empower investors with honest, independent insights.