Posted by Three months, five newcomers and a new number 1. That is the short summary of my P2P Risk Score, which grew from 26 to 31 rated platforms in the third quarter of 2026.
In this update, I summarise which platforms are new, where they rank and what changed among the existing P2P platforms. If you prefer to watch the content as a video (in English, and with English subtitles), you can find it here:
https://youtu.be/LA_HuEFrbbc
What the Risk Score is meant for
First, a brief introduction to the P2P Risk Score: The basic idea is to make the risk profile of P2P platforms objectively comparable, so that investors can make informed investment decisions instead of relying on gut feeling, marketing promises or intransparent recommendations.
Platforms are rated across five categories with several subcategories each, with a maximum of 100 points. On top of that, there are deductions in the form of red flags whenever there are documented irregularities, such as purchased reviews or questionable governance structures.
The quality of the loan portfolio plays a central role and is weighted at 25%. A detailed look at the best and financially most stable loan originators in the market can be found separately in my loan originator score.
And an important note upfront: Although the data is based on public and therefore objective primary sources, the Risk Score remains a subjective rating model that provides no reliability with regard to future returns. The full table with all 31 platforms and the complete methodology can be found on the platform risk overview page.
The five newcomers in the third quarter
Last quarter, five platforms were added to the Risk Score: InRento, Modena, Loanch, Digilo and 7Harvests.
InRento: The new number 1 (8.4 points)
With 8.4 points, InRento immediately took the top spot in the Risk Score and pushed Nectaro down to second place. Like Nectaro and Digilo, InRento achieves full marks in the categories regulation, transparency and loan portfolio, without a single red flag.
The difference lies in the remaining categories, where InRento also drops hardly any points. I verified the ECSP licence of the Lithuanian crowdfunding platform directly in the register of the Bank of Lithuania, the audited 2025 annual report shows a net profit, and the loan statistics show zero defaults on 129 million euros of funded projects to date.
What stands out is that InRento does not win through a single outlier criterion, but through a flawless overall profile. The few points it misses are due to a local auditor, accounting under local GAAP, fewer than 10,000 investors and its crisis behaviour, which naturally remains unproven so far.
Digilo: A strong start thanks to its licence (6.3 points)
Newcomer number 2 is Digilo with 6.3 points in 10th place. This ranking is particularly interesting because the Latvian platform has only been on the market since June 2026.
The foundation of the rating is the ECSP licence and the transparency of the loan portfolio, which has not yet been put to the test; both achieve full marks.
The lack of experience, on the other hand, shows in the track record with only 8 out of 25 points, and there are naturally no points yet for financial stability either, as the platform only launched this year. A platform’s age is therefore automatically priced into the score.
Modena: Not every licence is the same (5.6 points)
A bit further down follows Modena with 5.6 points in 18th place. Modena shows quite well that not every licence is the same: The Estonian platform does hold a lender licence from the financial supervisory authority EFSA, but it protects the borrowers and not the investors, which is why there are no points in the regulation category.
From my conversations with CEO Oliver Matt, I recently gathered that important steps have apparently been taken to obtain a MiFID II licence in the future. The platform’s path therefore seems to lead to Latvia.
Loanch: The score reacts in both directions (3.9 points)
Newcomer number 4 is Loanch, which started with just 0.7 points in second-to-last place.
Over the summer, the platform then published a statistics page with a portfolio and performance breakdown, moving up five positions to 25th place, now with 3.9 points. Transparency is rewarded in the score.
A platform’s history is not forgotten because of it, though: the 10-point deduction for the Cashwagon history of Loanch owner Maxim Chernushenko remains in place.
7Harvests: The other end of the scale (0.1 points)
That leaves the fifth newcomer, 7Harvests, which marks the other end of the scale and occupies last place for now with 0.1 points.
The Swiss construct prominently advertises Swiss regulation, although its membership of the self-regulatory organisation VQF has so far only been applied for. Fittingly, the FAQ on the website affirm regulation, while the platform’s own terms and conditions explicitly deny FINMA supervision.
Together with the history of the founder, under whose management at Hive5 there were false statements about profitability, purchased reviews and legal action against critical reporting, this adds up to 17 minus points in red flags right at launch.
Changes among existing platforms
Among the existing platforms, Maclear and Estateguru stand out in particular.
Maclear: 7-point deduction after the CrowdIndex investigation
In July, an investigation by P2P Empire took a closer look at the rating portal CrowdIndex, a supposedly independent portal that crowned Maclear the best P2P platform in Europe.
The catch: according to the investigation’s findings, the portal ran on Maclear’s own Google Analytics property, which suggests that CrowdIndex is part of Maclear’s marketing infrastructure.
After bot traffic and paid Trustpilot reviews, this would already be the third documented case of artificial reputation boosting, which is sanctioned in the Risk Score with a deduction of 7 points. In my view, a statement from Maclear via Telegram did not refute the allegations, while CrowdIndex remains online.
Estateguru: Two annual reports, one truth
An important story of the last quarter concerns Estateguru. On the platform’s website, the 2025 annual report is an unaudited standalone statement of the holding company, showing a mini profit of around 8,000 euros from intra-group interest and zero employees.
The Estonian business register, on the other hand, holds the audited statement of the operating Estateguru OÜ, which tells a completely different story: a loss of around 553,000 euros, a revenue decline of just over 16%, a cash position that melted from 856,000 to 146,000 euros, and notes that concede a possible going-concern risk.
On top of that comes a qualified audit opinion: neither the recoverability of the capitalised IT development costs of 1.85 million euros (no less than 82% of total assets) nor the development services purchased entirely from a related party in 2025 could be verified.
Estateguru’s score still rises despite these figures, because only the statements of the operating company or consolidated statements are counted; pure holding shells are not. The audited register statement meets most of the formal criteria (published, audited, positive equity) and thus earns 12 out of 20 possible points in the financial category. This example illustrates the principle of the score quite well: it measures the quality of disclosure and only to a limited extent its content.
Conclusion and outlook
The score rewards disclosure and transparency, as Loanch and Estateguru show particularly clearly this quarter. My task for the coming quarter is to better reflect the substance behind it as well.
The same applies to the advertised number of investors and what it says about a platform’s safety, especially since the platforms’ own figures (total versus active investors) sometimes differ considerably.
As always, I look forward to your thoughts and feedback in the comments on how the Risk Score could be further improved and adjusted.
As always, the complete ranking of all 31 platforms can be found in the risk overview.
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.