P2P Platform Risk

Last Update: 9 July 2026

How risky is a P2P lending platform? That is not a question that can be answered in a single sentence. Nevertheless, it is worth trying to analyse it systematically. That’s exactly what the re:think P2P Risk Score sets out to do.

Most investors will already be aware that P2P lending is a high-risk asset class. No score can change that, and no P2P platform ranking turns a risky investment into a safe one. What a score can do, however, is make the risks of different P2P platforms comparable, so investors can make informed decisions rather than relying on gut feeling, marketing promises or opaque recommendations.

To that end, we will first look at how the P2P Risk Score works and the methodology behind it, before turning to the results for each individual P2P platform.

---

How the re:think P2P Risk Score works

The re:think P2P Risk Score rates P2P platforms on a scale from 0.0 to 10.0, based on up to 100 achievable points across five categories. These are:

• Category 1: Regulation and Licensing (15 Points)
• Category 2: Financial Stability (20 Points)
• Category 3: Transparency and Disclosure (15 Points)
• Category 4: Loan Portfolio and Investor Losses (25 Points)
• Category 5: Track Record and Crisis Behaviour (25 Points)

Under the Risk Score, every P2P platform starts at 0 points. Each point has to be earned through verifiable, publicly accessible criteria. The model deliberately excludes criteria such as usability, app availability or the number of language interfaces. These factors affect the user experience, but not the underlying risk of losing money on the platform.

In addition to the five categories, documented individual incidents (red flags) can lead to point deductions. Each deduction is explained and sourced in the relevant platform’s review.

Importantly, there is no double penalty. Every event is only counted once, either within a category or as a red flag. The same incident can therefore never lead to multiple deductions. Further explanations and examples follow below.

---

Category 1: Regulation and Licensing (15 Points)

Regulation is the most fundamental protective framework for investors. A regulated platform is subject to state supervision, which enforces minimum standards for capitalisation, compliance and transparency. In a crisis, regulated platforms offer a legal framework that simply doesn’t exist for unregulated providers.

The Score distinguishes five levels of regulation:

MiFID II and ECSP licences form the highest tier. Both frameworks require comprehensive compliance standards. MiFID II platforms additionally offer an investor compensation scheme (up to EUR 20,000 in the event of insolvency or misappropriation), while ECSP platforms must comply with regulatory requirements designed to prevent conflicts of interest between the platform operator and loan projects. Because both licences offer different, mutually complementary protections, they are scored equally.

E-money institutions are also subject to supervision, but with a different focus: This regulation targets payment processing rather than investment products. Unregulated platforms, by contrast, offer no institutional protective framework. That doesn’t automatically make them disreputable, but the structural risk is objectively higher.

Category 2: Financial Stability (20 Points)

This category assesses whether a platform is economically viable and whether external control mechanisms review its financial data.

The theoretical maximum of 20 points requires a published annual statement audited by a Big Four firm under IFRS, with a positive result and positive equity. Only Bondora managed to meet all requirements for the maximum score.

Without a published annual statement, a platform can’t earn any points in this category, since none of the six criteria can be verified without a financial report. Among regulated P2P platforms, both Afranga and Profitus are affected by this.

As a courtesy, 2024 financial figures are still accepted in the current rating.

Category 3: Transparency and Disclosure (15 Points)

The Risk Score only considers information that is permanently and publicly accessible. Data shared exclusively via newsletter, on request, or in closed groups doesn’t count. This is intended to reward only those P2P platforms that offer transparency to all investors.

Portfolio performance data carries the highest weighting at 7 points, because it forms the basis for Category 4. A platform that doesn’t publish performance data loses 7 points for lack of transparency, and additionally receives 0 points in Category 4 for the actual performance of its portfolio.

This isn’t double punishment, because these are answers to two different questions. First: Is data published at all? Second: What does that data show?

Encouragingly, more than half of all rated platforms achieved full points here, including Mintos, LANDE and Income Marketplace.

Category 4: Loan Portfolio and Investor Losses (25 Points)

This category assesses operational performance on two levels.

• How well is the outstanding loan portfolio performing?
• Have investors already suffered capital losses in the past?

On methodology: For P2P platforms with a buyback guarantee, a loan up to 60 days overdue is considered current, since the buyback mechanism typically kicks in at 60 days. For platforms with collateral (real estate, farmland, etc.), a threshold of up to 90 days applies, since realising collateral structurally takes longer.

Seven P2P platforms achieved full marks thanks to strong portfolio performance and no capital losses to date, including Nectaro, Fintown and Esketit.

Category 5: Track Record and Crisis Behaviour (25 Points)

The final category assesses how long a platform has been operating, how many investors trust it, and how it has behaved during crisis situations.

Crisis behaviour is the single most heavily weighted criterion, worth up to 12 points. Platforms with no documented crises receive 8 points as “unproven”. This prevents young P2P platforms without a crisis history from receiving the same score as platforms that have actually proven their resilience in a crisis. At the same time, younger platforms shouldn’t be automatically penalised simply for lacking crisis situations.

Of all platforms, only PeerBerry manages to achieve the maximum score. The Croatia-based P2P marketplace has both a long track record and a strong investor base, as well as outstanding crisis management, most notably demonstrated by the recovery of over EUR 50 million in war-affected loans during the Ukraine conflict.

Red Flags

In addition to the five categories, documented individual incidents can lead to point deductions. Each deduction is explained and sourced in the relevant platform’s review.

Conflicts of interest arising from overlapping shareholders between platform and loan originator aren’t penalised as a blanket rule. A deduction only applies where the overlap was actively concealed or has demonstrably led to losses for investors.

Hive5 is particularly affected here, with 34 penalty points, followed by Debitum with 19 and Estateguru with 17 points deducted.

---

P2P Platform Risk: All Results at a Glance

As with previous rating systems, it’s worth noting that different criteria and different weightings could lead to an entirely different result. The P2P Risk Score should therefore primarily be treated as guidance, and by no means as the basis for an investment decision.

It is striking that no platform even comes close to the theoretical maximum of 10.0 points. The maximum score of 8.0 points (Nectaro, Q3/2026) illustrates just how demanding this rating is.

Furthermore, a score of 8.0 points does not mean “almost risk-free” but rather “the lowest-risk option within a high-risk asset class”. P2P loans are often described as a high-risk asset class without evidence or empirical backing. The re:think P2P Risk Score, however, clearly reflects that reality.

---

FAQ: P2P Platform Risk Score