P2P Loan Originators: Comparison and Risk Score

Last Update: 4 September 2026

About the re:think P2P loan originator score

The re:think P2P loan originator score rates 100+ loan originators on six balance-sheet criteria: reporting, profitability, return on assets, equity ratio, liquidity and portfolio quality (loan losses). The assessment is based on audited financial statements where available. The P2P platforms themselves are rated separately by the re:think P2P Risk Score.

On many P2P platforms, investors can choose from a variety of different lending companies. In this regard, past experiences have shown repeatedly that quality is often more important than quantity.

So how can one identify the best loan originators?

One of the most important factors to consider is financial stability. Therefore, the loan originators on this page are examined against six separate criteria, with a total score of up to 100 points.

111evaluated lending companies

Median 57.0 · Range 15–90 points

Strong (85–100 points)0.9 %1
Stable (70–84 points)24.3 %27
Medium (55–69 points)30.6 %34
Risk (40–54 points)24.3 %27
Critical (0–39 points)19.8 %22

Based on all lending companies with a total score.

How The Lender Comparison Score Works

There are six criteria in total, each rated on a scale from 1 (weakest level) to 5 (strongest level). Every level is multiplied by its own weight. Added up, this produces a total score of up to 100 points. Here is the breakdown:

Criterion Weight Max. Points
Reporting (Audit Quality) 4 20
Profitability 2 10
Return on Assets (ROA) 2 10
Equity Ratio 5 25
Liquidity 2 10
Portfolio Quality (Loan Losses) 5 25
Total 20 100

Total Score

The loan originator comparison score condenses all available financial metrics and qualitative information into a single risk indicator. Each level is multiplied by its weight and the results are added up across all six criteria.

How each criterion is calculated and assessed is explained below the tables: → Six Lender Comparison Criteria In Detail

How To Read The Tables

  • Sorting: Rated loan originators come first, ordered by total score. Below them are the companies that have financial metrics but no total score. Right at the bottom are the loan originators without a usable report.
  • No Total Score: Some holdings and project companies have no loan book of their own. The portfolio criterion does not apply to them, which is why a total score is withdrawn.
  • Missing Data: Transparency is a core part of sound financial management. If a loan originator does not disclose a particular metric, this is treated as elevated risk and results in 0 points.
  • Year: Links directly to the annual report that was evaluated. Every rating can therefore be verified at the source.
  • Footnote (*): Portfolio quality derived from the substitute calculation using the provision coverage ratio.
  • Empty Cell: Not disclosed in the financial statements.

Afranga

More information about the platform is available in my Afranga review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
Stik Credit (BG)2025NexiaEUR 2.3M7.1%44.1%2.4534.2%81
Credirect (BG)2025UnauditedEUR 3.5M52.6%91.3%11.3051.8%64
Lendivo (BG)2025NexiaEUR 171K4.7%13.8%1.9657.0%57
Lev Credit (BG)2025UnauditedEUR 255K28.8%76.2%29.0%*54
Swiss Funds (CZ)2025UnauditedEUR 22K0.8%22.3%1.1124.4%*38
Tiberus (BG)

Bondora

More information about the platform is available in my Bondora Go & Grow review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
Bondora Group (EE)2025KPMGEUR 9.5M29.6%74.7%3.18

Debitum

More information about the platform is available in my Debitum review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
Sandbox (LV)2025BK PartnerisEUR 235K6.7%31.7%0.8356
Evergreen (EE)2024UnauditedEUR 279K9.2%24.7%2.0849
Juno (LV)2024UnauditedEUR 158K1.4%7.6%0.1028
Triple Dragon (GB)2024UnauditedEUR 00.0%0.0%3.3527
Baltic Terra (LV)2025S. Vilcānes auditsEUR 266K91.9%99.0%95.54
LFDF (LV)2025S. Vilcānes auditsEUR 1.6M6.5%7.9%0.08

Esketit

More information about the platform is available in my Esketit review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
Jet Finance (KZ)2024Grant ThorntonEUR 1.2M4.4%20.6%1.1513.4%79
Spanda Capital (ES)2024Cortés y Asoc.EUR 12K0.4%0.2%0.8534.0%41
Mojo Capital (AE)2025UnauditedEUR 327K3.9%1.6%17.7135
JMD Investments (LV)2024Baker TillyEUR 4.6M32.2%51.8%0.25
A24 Group
Credus Capital
MDI Finance
Nimbura

Income Marketplace

More information about the platform is available in my Income Marketplace review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
ITF Group (BG)2024EcovisEUR 1.8M11.0%34.3%2.1334.0%76
Virtus (XK)2025BDOEUR 372K3.3%11.4%0.462.6%75
Autofino (LT)2024CroweEUR 51K1.5%15.8%0.779.6%67
DanaKredi (ID)2024UnauditedEUR 14.1M26.5%68.2%3.1359
Simpleros (ES)2024UnauditedEUR 201K12.3%31.3%2.2856.2%59
Hoovi (EE)2024UnauditedEUR 662K9.9%12.1%0.5412.3%58
Ibancar (ES)2025UnauditedEUR 730K3.4%14.6%1.0%57
Pinjam Yuk (ID)2025UnauditedEUR 10.6M21.9%57.0%64.4%52
Mocasa (PH)2025UnauditedEUR (167K)(7.0%)42.8%1.5067.8%46
Current Auto (LT)2023UnauditedEUR (54K)(0.7%)(2.9%)2.6811.0%43
One Leasing (MK)2025Russell BedfordEUR (129K)(11.7%)(12.5%)0.0615.0%*32
Sandfield (GB)2025UnauditedEUR 2.4M8.5%(0.7%)27
Current Auto (LV)2024UnauditedEUR (913K)(19.4%)(55.2%)1.0855.2%*24
Danabijak (ID)2023KrestonEUR 16K2.6%21.4%0.66

Lendermarket

More information about the platform is available in my Lendermarket review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
Credifiel (MX)2024RSMEUR 7.1M6.0%35.6%1.1614.8%78
Creditstar Group (EE)2025KPMGEUR 13.5M3.0%15.6%0.4414.6%73
Rapicredit (CO)2024Nexia M&AEUR 457K1.6%19.9%2.0410.4%73
Best Credit Invest (RO)20253B Expert AuditEUR 21K3.2%39.0%23.6%*59
Dineo (ES)2024BNFIXEUR 2.4M25.0%0.7%3.3646.3%52
Ok Credit (MD)2025UnauditedEUR 21K4.9%24.6%6.6247
Flowpay (CZ)2024UnauditedEUR 106K5.3%4.7%29
Rapicredit Iberica

Lendiball

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
Victoria Credit (MD)2025MOLDAUDITINGEUR 39K10.3%60.0%33.3%*60
Virtula Finance (RO)2024ASTRAEUR (13K)(6.7%)98.4%52.4%50

Loanch

More information about the platform is available in my Loanch review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
Tambadana (MY)2024SY Lee & Co.EUR 470K15.2%2.5%2.6338.6%54
Ammana (SG)2023Helmi TalibEUR (3.7M)(380.3%)(522.5%)2.3677.1%36
AhaPay (MY)2025SFAIEUR (824K)(39.4%)(16.0%)0.86191.6%34

Mintos

More information about the platform is available in my Mintos review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
Eleving Group (LU)2025BDOEUR 29.2M5.5%18.3%3.4221.8%80
Hipocredit (LT)2025NexiaEUR 1.1M4.2%15.8%14.5280
Gocredit (MX)2025UnauditedEUR 4.4M10.1%44.2%7.3513.8%79
Credifiel (MX)2024RSMEUR 7.1M6.0%35.6%1.1614.8%78
Financiera Mexi (MX)2024BDOEUR 1.8M3.0%35.0%2.6611.0%78
Placet Group (EE)2025KPMGEUR 5.6M6.3%38.4%4.7620.3%77
IuteCredit (MD)2024Baker TillyEUR 2.4M4.1%32.9%2.7417.5%75
Mozipo Group (RO)2024UnauditedEUR 178K3.3%41.6%1.9212.5%75
Sun Finance Group (LV)2025BDOEUR 58.3M20.7%33.0%3.5440.0%75
ESTO (EE)2024UnauditedEUR 11.3M16.9%33.4%2.7110.6%74
Finclusion (KE)2025PwCEUR 31K0.3%29.2%13.9%74
Eleving (BW)2025BDOEUR 1.3M4.6%22.4%14.9%73
Eleving (GE)2025UnauditedEUR 1.7M5.6%74.9%2.2219.5%72
IuteCredit (MK)2024Moore StephensEUR 2.0M5.4%15.4%7.4127.5%71
Mozipo Group (LT)2025Grant ThorntonEUR 359K2.0%29.6%20.4%*71
Eleving / Mogo (MD)2024BDOEUR 1.3M6.9%12.3%14.4%70
Eleving / Sebo (MD)2025BDOEUR 2.6M8.7%31.2%31.0%70
ID Finance (ES)2025EYEUR 20.4M15.4%23.5%2.2359.6%70
Cash Credit (BG)2024EinzelprüferEUR 265K4.0%55.4%1.801.7%69
DelfinGroup (LV)2025BDOEUR 9.6M6.6%18.5%0.4533.1%67
Iute Group (EE)2025KPMGEUR 9.9M2.1%15.8%24.5%66
Eleving / AS Mogo (LV)2024BDOEUR (969K)(2.6%)72.4%2.2943.7%64
BB Finance (EE)2024KPMGEUR 1.1M5.0%18.0%25.8%63
Restock Tech Group (ID)2025UnauditedEUR 137K1.6%17.5%6.728.6%63
Eleving (AM)2024UnauditedEUR 3.5M20.0%61.5%1.587.7%*62
Eleving (LT)2025UnauditedEUR 213K0.9%16.3%2.465.0%61
Pinjam Yuk (SG)2025UnauditedEUR 1.5M5.2%42.8%1.7379.0%60
ID Finance Gruppe (ES)2024EYEUR 6.6M4.2%16.0%61.5%58
Eleving (AL)2025UnauditedEUR 6.0M14.5%30.2%23.1%57
Eleving / FINMAK (MK)2025UnauditedEUR 4.4M17.0%53.6%30.4%57
MK Kredit (RO)2025UnauditedEUR 2.0M3.8%19.4%10.2%57
Watu Credit (UG)2024UnauditedEUR 8.3M9.1%28.9%18.7%57
Vivalia (MX)2025UnauditedEUR 97K0.2%46.2%15.6%56
Evergreen Finance (GB)2025UnauditedEUR 1.7M5.2%22.4%1.5933.6%55
IuteCredit (AL)2024UnauditedEUR 4.7M5.6%26.7%1.4235.7%55
Credius (RO)2025UnauditedEUR 1.7M7.6%40.7%35.6%52
Mogo (KZ)2025UnauditedEUR 8.1M7.2%16.3%18.4%52
MK Kredit (MD)2025UnauditedEUR 241K1.0%32.7%24.7%51
Sun Finance (SE)2025EinzelprüferEUR 2.5M9.2%9.6%1.1165.7%49
IDF Eurasia (KZ)2024UnauditedEUR 2.6M1.2%18.7%1.3739.4%46
Monefit (EE)2025UnauditedEUR 88K0.1%10.2%7.3%46
Eleving (EE)2025UnauditedEUR 16K0.0%7.6%0.9920.9%45
Creditstar (FI)2025UnauditedEUR 96K0.1%2.9%10.5%41
IuteCredit (BG)2024AELB BulgariaEUR (1.2M)(8.1%)8.3%1.2157.8%41
Hipocredit (LV)2025UnauditedEUR 206K1.2%14.6%8.1238
Eleving / mogo (LT)2024ROSKEUR (667K)(2.6%)7.8%32
ESTO (LT)2024TezaurusEUR (1.1M)(19.9%)(57.7%)43.7%26

Monefit SmartSaver

More information about the platform is available in my Monefit SmartSaver review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
Creditstar Group (EE)2025KPMGEUR 13.5M3.0%15.6%0.4414.6%73

Nectaro

More information about the platform is available in my Nectaro review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
CreditPrime (RO)2025Forvis MazarsEUR 3.6M26.1%41.9%3.3418.1%90
CreditPrime (MD)2025CroweEUR 657K5.3%15.9%0.5728.0%57
Abele Finance (LV)2025Review onlyEUR (114K)(1.6%)3.3%0.90

PeerBerry

More information about the platform is available in my PeerBerry review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
PujckaPlus (CZ)2025SolveBrosEUR 1.7M19.9%53.3%2.0628.0%77
OneCredit (KZ)2025AlmirEUR 666K11.2%51.2%3.37145.8%76
ACredit (RO)2025Savvy AuditEUR 2.6M69.6%43.3%25.4%69
FinWind (LT)2025AUDIFINAEUR 1.9M73.7%83.2%4.9867
Smartcredito (ES)2025UnauditedEUR 523K6.7%21.7%13.226.8%67
NovaLend (PL)2025Quantum AudytEUR 38K0.6%8.9%0.916.0%58
A-Credit (KZ)2025Baker TillyEUR (306K)(2.0%)72.5%1.8157.0%52
Findom (KZ)2025Baker TillyEUR (1.1M)(44.4%)23.4%1.04203.6%52
Credito365 (MX)2025Servicios VanguardistasEUR 1.4M26.5%(10.0%)8.0645
Credit365 (MD)2025Manager AuditEUR 91K0.7%14.8%4.4544
CashX (NG)2025BSG ProfessionalEUR (26K)(3.1%)(7.0%)457.6240.1%40
LendPlus (KE)2025MGKEUR (26K)(0.5%)(6.5%)19.0249.0%38
Credito365 (CO)2025Revisor FiscalEUR (304K)(22.2%)(17.3%)2.3470.8%36
LendPlus (ZA)2025Mahleka DEUR (6.2M)(119.8%)(110.1%)1.81107.4%34
Cash-Express (PH)2025UnauditedEUR (732K)(36.3%)(185.2%)4.3550.4%28
Lendi (AR)2025J. C. PisacoEUR (116K)(54.7%)(44.7%)0.6619
Mira Prima (ES)2025UnauditedEUR (135K)(6.4%)(6.3%)0.7917
Mira Segundo (ES)2025UnauditedEUR (282K)(5.6%)(5.5%)0.0615
Aventus Biznes (PL)
Credit365 (AU)
Jabulani Money (ZA)
PaydayLoanPlus (CA)
Prestamo365 (PE)
PrimeLoans (ZA)
RealCredito (ES)
TuParcero (CO)

Robocash

More information about the platform is available in my Robocash review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
UnaFinancial (SG)2024UnauditedEUR 553K0.5%3.8%51.8%22

Swaper

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
Wandoo Finance Group (LV)2025DzereleEUR 3.7M7.3%18.0%2.5052.7%62
SW Finance (EE)2024AssertumEUR (30K)(0.3%)(0.3%)1.2327

Twino

More information about the platform is available in my TWINO review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
Fincard (PL)2025BDOEUR 10.4M18.5%42.5%1.8137.1%66

Viainvest

More information about the platform is available in my Viainvest review.

LenderYearAuditedProfitROAEquityLiquidityLossesScore
VIA SMS (LV)2025BDOEUR 2.6M4.8%13.7%1.004.9%77
VIA SMS (CZ)2025UnauditedEUR (12K)(0.3%)19.7%1.132.4%54
Viaconto (SE)2025UnauditedEUR 2.4M11.0%15.1%1.1338.6%50
Viaconto Minicredit (RO)2025UnauditedEUR (255K)(21.6%)42.9%82.0%*40

Six Lender Comparison Criteria In Detail

Below is an overview of the criteria applied when assessing financial stability, including what each one means, how it is calculated and how to interpret it.

Reporting Standard
What it means and why it matters: The metrics used in this scoring are only as reliable as the figures they come from. Since roughly four out of ten loan originators publish no audited financial statements, reporting carries the third-largest share of points in the comparison.
Calculation: Not a number, but a qualitative assessment based on two questions. First: Are there annual financial statements with an audit opinion from a recognised audit firm? Second: Which accounting standard has been applied?
Scale:

  • Level 5 (strong): Audited under IFRS by a top-10 firm
  • Level 4 (stable): Audited under IFRS by a smaller audit firm
  • Level 3 (medium): Audited under local GAAP by a reliable auditor
  • Level 2 (risk): The auditor is not an identifiable firm, the opinion is qualified, or it is only a review engagement
  • Level 1 (critical): No audit, management accounts only or unaudited figures

The top 10 are: Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG, BDO, RSM, Grant Thornton, Forvis Mazars, Baker Tilly and Crowe.

Comments by the auditor on the state of the business do not feed into this criterion, for instance a going-concern uncertainty or an “emphasis of matter”. These relate to the economic situation, which is already measured through equity, profit, liquidity and loan losses. Penalising it twice is deliberately avoided. A qualified opinion, on the other hand, automatically means level 2, because it calls the reliability of the figures themselves into question.

Profitability
What it means and why it matters: Profit shows whether the business model works. Persistent losses can be a clear warning sign for investors, because they erode the capital base and raise the risk of insolvency. What is assessed is not the size of the profit but the pattern over two years.
Calculation: Net profit after tax compared with the previous year.
Scale:

  • Level 5 (strong): Profits in both of the last two years
  • Level 4 (stable): Turnaround – profit following a loss-making year
  • Level 3 (medium): Break-even (within ±1% of total assets) following a profitable year
  • Level 2 (risk): Loss following a profitable year
  • Level 1 (critical): Losses in both of the last two years

Where no prior-year result is available, the criterion is capped at level 4 (at level 1 in the case of a loss).

Return on Assets
What it means and why it matters: Return on assets (ROA) is a core profitability metric. It shows how efficiently a company uses its entire asset base to generate profit.
Calculation: Net profit ÷ average total assets. Where no prior year is available, closing total assets are used.
Scale:

  • Level 5 (strong): above 5%
  • Level 4 (stable): 3% to 5%
  • Level 3 (medium): 1% to 3%
  • Level 2 (risk): 0% to 1%
  • Level 1 (critical): negative
Equity Ratio
What it means and why it matters: The equity ratio indicates how financially stable and resilient a company is.
Calculation: Equity ÷ total assets.
Scale:

  • Level 5 (strong): 40% and above
  • Level 4 (stable): 25% to 40%
  • Level 3 (medium): 15% to 25%
  • Level 2 (risk): 5% to 15%
  • Level 1 (critical): below 5%
Liquidity
What it means and why it matters: The liquidity ratio shows whether liabilities falling due within a year can be met from cash and short-term receivables.
Calculation: (Cash and cash equivalents + short-term receivables) ÷ short-term liabilities.
Scale:

  • Level 5 (strong): above 2.0
  • Level 4 (stable): 1.5 to 2.0
  • Level 3 (medium): 1.0 to 1.5
  • Level 2 (risk): 0.5 to 1.0
  • Level 1 (critical): below 0.5
  • Level 0 (not disclosed): cannot be calculated
Portfolio Quality
What it means and why it matters: Portfolio quality is the core risk of the lending business. What matters is not how many loans have defaulted, but whether the losses of the current year can be paid for out of the income of the same year. That is exactly what the cost-of-risk ratio measures.
Calculation: Impairment charge for the year ÷ lending income for the year.
Scale:

  • Level 5 (strong): below 5%
  • Level 4 (stable): 5% to 15%
  • Level 3 (medium): 15% to 25%
  • Level 2 (risk): 25% to 35%
  • Level 1 (critical): above 35%
  • Level 0 (not disclosed): no usable information on loan losses

The denominator is income from the lending business, meaning interest plus the fees paid by the borrower. It excludes brokerage and agency commissions earned on behalf of third parties, income from securities and intra-group interest. The numerator, on the other hand, includes losses from the sale of non-performing receivables. The reasoning: Selling a defaulted portfolio at a discount instead of writing it off still realises the loss.

Substitute calculation: Where the financial statements show no impairment charge for the year but only the accumulated allowance, the provision coverage ratio is used instead (accumulated allowance ÷ gross portfolio). These rows are marked with an asterisk (*). The levels for this are: below 3% / 3–6% / 6–10% / 10–15% / above 15%.

Disclaimer

The published financial results were evaluated to the best of my knowledge and belief. Individual errors can nevertheless not be ruled out. Every year figure in the tables therefore links to the original source. Investors should engage with the figures presented here independently and responsibly. Viewed in isolation, financial metrics are not a measure of a loan originator’s success or failure. Factors such as country risk, guarantees, buyback obligations and group liability have to be taken into account alongside them.

 

Denny Neidhardt
denny@rethink-p2p.de | Webseite

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.

18 comments

  1. Hi Denny,
    ​Thank you for the great work.
    ​I wanted to suggest a small modification to make the report even more intuitive: what do you think about adding an extra column for the previous score? A simple column with the previous number would suffice. This way, it would be much easier to see the evolution and trend of the data compared to the previous analysis.

    Reply

  2. Hi Danny, I find your page very insightful. One suggestion: would it be possible to include a column indicating the date of analysis for each lender? I’ve noticed that some data remains unchanged despite more recent updates from the providers themselves.

    Reply

    1. Hi Itta,
      no, I don’t plan to add a column for the date of the analysis.
      Kindly indicate which annual reports have recently been published.
      Please note that I don’t cover interim reports.

      Reply

  3. Hi Denny. The Impairment ratio of Stik Credit now is 22%? Why have you lower it if no new audited report?
    Thanks in advance

    Reply

  4. Thanks for Great data!
    Would there be interest in reviewing PeerBerry’s Aventus Group as a whole? Or for example the iuvo Group and from that also MGF? And why not Bondster?

    Reply

  5. Thanks a lot for creating this useful comparison. It definitely took a lot of time, and we highly appreciate it.

    Reply

  6. Thank you so much for your work, I’m really glad I found this page ????????????! Hive5’s loan originators would be a great addition to your analysis.

    Reply

  7. Hi Denny,
    First, I just want to say thank you for the excellent and detailed analysis you provide on Rethink P2P.
    I have a quick question about your scoring methodology. I noticed that you don’t seem to assign a specific score to the “age” or operational history of the companies.
    I was just wondering about the reasoning for this. For example, in the current rating, a company with good financials that has been active for less than 5 years seems to have no scoring difference compared to a company at a similar level that has been active for 20 years.
    Was this a conscious decision? I’d be interested to know your thoughts on why longevity isn’t factored in as a specific scoring point.
    Thanks again for your great work!

    Reply

    1. Hi Itta,

      thanks for your feedback on the lender comparison page. The track record is indeed an important aspect of the overall lender assessment. However, this comparison focuses solely on financial stability, which is why I am looking only at the most recent financial data.

      Including past financial performance could potentially penalize younger, yet stable, lending companies. At the same time, how would someone assess if an established loan originator has done good or bad in the past? Does a low rating become better, despite having great financials in the past?

      Having the overall picture in mind is important. But for evaluating financial stability, only recent results provide the most relevant and comparable benchmark for all lenders.

      Thanks again for sharing your feedback!
      Denny

      Reply

  8. Comparison of originators is one of the most valuables things! I may suggest update it on regular basis and add new (if possible). Thank you.

    Reply

      1. Hi Denny, I suggest to analyse:
        Estateguru
        Iuvo
        LandSecured
        Bondster
        Peerbery
        Robocash
        Lendermarket
        Esketit
        Paskolu Klubas
        Reinvest24
        HeavyFinance
        Indemo
        Crowdpear
        Fintown
        Swaper
        Twino
        Afranga, StikCredit
        Moncera
        Bulkestate
        Nordstreet
        Crowdestate
        Profitus
        Inrento
        Viainvest
        Nectaro
        Scramble
        Stockcrowdin
        Civislend Platforms and originators (where not analysed). I personally use ChatGPT plus in this case. I found Eleving group is missed. All the best, Mindaugas

        Reply

  9. Doesn’t anyone notice that you copy everything P2P Empire does? It was really noticeable recently. Even your portfolio is almost identical.

    P2P Empire publishes lender reviews -> Danny publishes lender reviews.
    P2P Empire invests in Afranga -> Denny invests in Afranga.
    and so on…

    It would be cool if you created your own content again 🙂 The blog is just a shadow of what it used to be. Very sad development….

    Reply

    1. Thanks for your feedback. Let me clarify a few things: I have a lot of respect for P2P Empire. They are doing a great job. As far as I know, I invested in Afranga before they did. The same goes for Nectaro, by the way. As for the lender page, I started publishing lender analyses earlier this year as part of my platform reviews (e.g., Income Marketplace, Nectaro). What has changed is that I’m now expanding this format and consolidating the information on one page to make it more structured and accessible for readers. In addition, we use different KPIs to assess financial performance. So while there may be some overlapses and similarities, I don’t believe your accusations are justified.
      Have a good day,
      Denny

      Reply

  10. Hi Denny,
    What an impressive dashboard.
    I never took the time to build mine / the size of my portfolio doesn’t justify so much work.
    It would be great if you could extend it to other platforms.
    The maintenance will be a real challenge I guess.
    Thanks a lot.
    Patrick,

    Reply

    1. Hi Patrick,
      thanks for your feedback.
      Mintos and PeerBerry will be added in the next days as well.
      Indeed, maintenance is going to be a challenge. Maybe I will perform an update once each quarter.
      So long,
      Denny

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *