How We Grade P2P Platforms: Five Checks, Zero Paid Grades

Investor protection (30%)

Protection is the heaviest check because a platform can deliver 15% returns for three years, then freeze withdrawals and wipe your capital overnight. We score what genuinely protects you when stress arrives - not marketing claims.

What we measure: licence type and what it truly covers; regulator enforcement record; capital requirements; segregated client accounts; compensation schemes; documented handling of defaults and platform failures.

Evidence we use: national regulator registers (Bank of Lithuania, Latvijas Banka, Central Bank of Ireland, Estonian FI, Swiss FINMA); licence type (ECSP, MiFID II, SRO membership, unregulated); published capital adequacy; audited financials showing segregation; investor reports documenting default resolutions.

How it maps to grades: An A-grade platform holds an ECSP or MiFID II licence from a regulator with documented enforcement actions in the P2P sector, maintains segregated client accounts verified by audit, and has resolved at least one stress event (default, originator failure, portfolio concentration shock) without capital losses to investors. B-grade platforms hold a licence but lack a documented stress test or operate under weaker regulatory regimes. C-grade platforms are unregulated or licensed in jurisdictions without P2P-specific oversight. D-grade platforms face regulator alerts, investigations or suspended licences.

Key deduction: no European P2P platform offers statutory deposit insurance or an investor compensation scheme that covers borrower defaults. ECSP and MiFID licences enforce conduct rules - transparency, capital requirements, complaint handling - but your capital remains at risk if loans default. The Mintos EUR 20,000 scheme covers platform insolvency only, not loan defaults. This deduction keeps even the best platforms below a theoretical maximum protection score.

Delivery track record (20%)

Past performance never guarantees future returns, but a platform that has honoured every buyback promise since 2017 tells you more than one that launched in 2023 with a slick deck and no stress test.

What we measure: years in operation; cumulative funds raised; documented defaults and recovery outcomes; buyback fulfilment where offered; investor complaints about payment delays; platform continuity through economic shocks (COVID-19, Ukraine war, energy crisis).

Evidence we use: platform-published statistics; audited financials showing loan volumes; investor forum threads with timestamps; regulator complaints registers; public statements during crises; comparative portfolio snapshots over 12-24 months.

How it maps to grades: An A-grade platform has operated for at least three years, funded EUR 100 million or more in loans, documented resolution of defaults with minimal investor losses, and maintained operations through at least one economic downturn. B-grade platforms have shorter track records (1-3 years) or smaller scale but no material payment failures. C-grade platforms show gaps between claimed performance and investor reports, or recent payment delays under 90 days. D-grade platforms face documented withdrawal freezes, unresolved defaults exceeding 10% of portfolio, or multiple quarters of non-payment.

Stress-test weighting: a platform that repaid EUR 51 million in Ukraine-war loans in full (PeerBerry) or covered its only default without investor loss (Maclear) scores higher than a platform with smooth sailing but no documented stress. We want to see what happens when the model breaks.

Yield reality (20%)

Advertised returns mean nothing if realised payouts come in 4 percentage points lower. We compare what platforms promise on the homepage to what investors actually receive in their accounts.

What we measure: advertised yield range; realised returns reported by the platform or verified by independent investor samples; gap between advertised and realised (acceptable under 2 percentage points); consistency over 12-24 months; explanation of discrepancies (fees, defaults, currency moves).

Evidence we use: platform homepage and marketing materials; published investor reports showing monthly/quarterly realised returns; audited financials where return components are broken out; investor forum posts with account screenshots (cross-checked for authenticity); regulator filings for ECSP/MiFID platforms.

How it maps to grades: An A-grade platform delivers realised returns within 2 percentage points of advertised yield, publishes monthly investor reports with portfolio-level statistics, and discloses all fees upfront. B-grade platforms hit advertised returns but lack granular reporting, or show a 2-3 point gap explained by identifiable costs. C-grade platforms show 3-5 point gaps without clear explanation, or report yields inconsistently. D-grade platforms deliver returns materially below advertised (5+ points), stop publishing performance data, or show month-to-month volatility inconsistent with the claimed asset class.

Why this matters: a platform advertising 12% but delivering 8% is not four points worse than one advertising 10% and delivering 10% - it is structurally different. The gap signals either poor underwriting (defaults exceed projections), hidden fees, or wishful modelling. InSoil, for example, advertises ~13% but delivered ~8.5% realised over recent quarters - a gap that lowers its grade despite regulatory compliance.

Ownership & structure (15%)

A platform that lends exclusively to its own subsidiaries, through a holding company registered in three jurisdictions, with beneficial owners hidden behind nominees, is a different risk than a platform with transparent shareholders and independent loan originators.

What we measure: beneficial ownership concentration; number and independence of loan originators; related-party transactions (platform lending to its own group); corporate structure complexity (single entity vs multi-jurisdiction chains); transparency of ownership changes; auditor quality and continuity.

Evidence we use: national company registries (Estonian e-Business, Lithuanian JAR, Latvian Lursoft); audited financials noting related-party loans; platform disclosures on originator partnerships; public filings on shareholder changes; news coverage of ownership disputes or restructurings.

How it maps to grades: An A-grade platform has disclosed beneficial owners, works with multiple independent originators or direct borrowers, shows no related-party loan concentration above 25%, and publishes audited financials with unqualified opinions. B-grade platforms have concentrated ownership but transparent, or single-originator models with regulatory oversight. C-grade platforms show high related-party exposure (50%+ of loans to own group), opaque ownership chains, or recent unexplained management turnover. D-grade platforms hide beneficial owners, face investigations into ownership networks, or show conflicts of interest without disclosure.

Why this matters: Nectaro lends exclusively to Dyninno Group subsidiaries - the same group that owns Nectaro. That related-party concentration is disclosed and the platform holds a MiFID II licence, which keeps it A-grade, but the structure is materially different from InRento, which sources buy-to-let loans from independent Estonian landlords. We score transparency and regulatory oversight, but structural concentration lowers the ceiling.

Exit options (15%)

Liquidity is not yield. A 12% return locked for three years with no secondary market is a different product than 10% with same-day exit. We score how easily you can retrieve your capital before maturity.

What we measure: minimum investment (EUR 10 vs EUR 1,000 changes accessibility); auto-invest availability; secondary market presence and transaction volume; lock-up periods; documented liquidity (percentage of exit requests fulfilled within 7/30/90 days); withdrawal limits or queues.

Evidence we use: platform terms and conditions; secondary market transaction logs where published; investor forum reports of withdrawal times; platform announcements on liquidity constraints; regulatory filings for ECSP platforms noting redemption policies.

How it maps to grades: An A-grade platform offers auto-invest, a functioning secondary market with weekly transaction volume exceeding 1% of AUM, and no lock-up beyond individual loan maturity (typically under 12 months). B-grade platforms have auto-invest but limited secondary markets, or short lock-ups (under 6 months) with no early exit. C-grade platforms impose lock-ups of 12-24 months, or secondary markets with negligible volume (under 0.1% AUM weekly). D-grade platforms have frozen secondary markets, withdrawal queues exceeding 90 days, or suspended redemptions.

Why this matters: Mintos offers instant auto-invest and a secondary market that trades EUR 10-20 million weekly. Reinvest24 froze withdrawals in February 2024 and remains suspended. Exit options separate platforms you can leave from platforms that hold your capital hostage.

The grade scale: A+ to D

We combine the five checks into a single letter grade. Each check contributes its weighted percentage to a composite score, which maps to the grade bands below.

• A+ (90-100%): highest regulatory oversight, documented stress test passed, realised returns match advertised, transparent ownership, liquid exit. Currently one platform: Maclear.
• A (80-89%): ECSP or MiFID licence, multi-year track record, yield gap under 2 points, exit options functional. Four platforms: InRento, Mintos.
• A- (75-79%): licensed, strong delivery, minor gaps in transparency or liquidity. Two platforms: Capitalia, Nectaro.
• B+ (70-74%): licensed or strong unregulated with documented track record, some structural concerns. Three platforms: PeerBerry, Indemo.
• B (65-69%): operational, delivering returns, but unregulated or single-originator model. Two platforms: Robocash, Crowdpear.
• C+ (60-64%): watchlist - functional but material gaps in transparency, yield reality or recent negative news. Two platforms: Profitus, Lendermarket.
• C (50-59%): operational concerns, yield gaps above 3 points, or weak track record. Three platforms: InSoil, Twino.
• C- (45-49%): red flags in ownership, performance or recent complaints. One platform.
• D+ (40-44%): serious concerns; operational but high risk. One platform.
• D (30-39%): documented failures, regulator alerts, or withdrawal delays. Three platforms.
• D- (below 30%): frozen withdrawals, investigations, or insolvency proceedings. Three platforms.

Grade movement: downgrades happen the same day material negative news breaks. Upgrades require sustained improvement over at least two quarters - one good month does not erase a year of missed payments.

Green, Watch and Red lists

The letter grade tells you where a platform sits. The list tells you what we would do with our own money.

• Green list (A+ to B): platforms we would consider for core portfolio allocation. Includes the platforms graded A+ through B - nine platforms as of January 2026.
• Watchlist (C+ to C-): functional platforms with material concerns. Suitable for satellite allocations only, after reading the full review. Includes five platforms.
• Red list (D+ to D-): platforms we pass. Documented failures, regulator alerts, withdrawal freezes or investigations. Seven platforms currently red-listed.

List changes: a platform drops from Green to Watch or Red the day its grade crosses the threshold. Moving back to Green requires two consecutive quarters above the C+ boundary with no new red flags.

Rescore frequency and triggers

Grades refresh monthly on the first Monday of each month. We pull updated regulator registers, check for new audited financials, review investor forum activity, and compare platform-reported performance to prior quarters.

Same-day rescore triggers: regulator alerts or sanctions; withdrawal freezes or queues exceeding 30 days; documented ownership changes or investigations; audited financials showing negative equity; platform announcements of business model changes or cessation of new loans.

Why monthly: P2P platforms are not stocks - a single day's news rarely changes the structural picture. Monthly rescoring balances responsiveness with avoiding noise. Material events override the schedule.

Why Maclear is the only A+ platform

As of January 2026, Maclear is the only platform graded A+. We walk the five checks to show how the grade forms - and why others score lower.

1. Investor protection (30%): Maclear holds Swiss SRO membership, which enforces AML compliance and conduct rules but carries no compensation scheme. It is not FINMA-licensed (bank/securities dealer), so statutory protection does not apply. However, it covered its only default in four years in full from its own balance sheet - a documented stress test. Score: 85% (deducted 15% for absence of statutory protection).
2. Delivery track record (20%): operational since 2022, EUR 50+ million funded, one documented default resolved without investor loss, continuous operations through 2023-2024 inflation and rate shocks. Score: 95%.
3. Yield reality (20%): advertised 14.5-14.9%, realised 14.7% average over 12 months ending December 2025. Gap under 0.5 percentage points. Monthly reporting. Score: 95%.
4. Ownership & structure (15%): transparent Swiss entity, disclosed founders, loans to independent SMEs and real-estate projects (no related-party concentration), audited financials. Score: 95%.
5. Exit options (15%): auto-invest enabled, EUR 50 minimum, no lock-up beyond loan maturity (6-12 months typical). No secondary market, which limits score. Score: 80%.

Composite score: (0.30 × 85) + (0.20 × 95) + (0.20 × 95) + (0.15 × 95) + (0.15 × 80) = 25.5 + 19 + 19 + 14.25 + 12 = 89.75%, rounded to 90% = A+.

Why others score lower: InRento matches or exceeds Maclear on protection (ECSP licence, five years zero losses) and delivery (100% track record), but yields 11.8% vs Maclear's 14.9% - lower absolute return drops yield-reality score. Mintos has superior exit options (secondary market, instant liquidity) but its EUR 20,000 scheme only covers platform insolvency, not loan defaults, and portfolio scale (EUR 600M+) introduces concentration risks Maclear avoids at EUR 50M. Robocash delivers 9-13% with buyback honoured since 2017, but unregulated status and 100% own-group loans lower protection and structure scores. Every platform loses points somewhere; Maclear loses the fewest.

Affiliate income and conflicts

Transparency beats neutrality. We earn affiliate commissions from two sources: Maclear (standard commission plus EUR 30 bonus to new investors) and 8lends (Sponsored, standard commission). Both relationships are disclosed on every page where the platforms appear.

Grade independence: grades are fixed before any commercial conversation. A platform can approach us after its grade is published to discuss affiliate terms, but the grade does not change. If we later discover evidence that lowers the grade, we rescore and notify the platform - the affiliate relationship does not prevent a downgrade.

Sponsored placements: 8lends pays for a Sponsored placement - always labelled, always outside the graded list. Sponsored platforms do not receive grades and are never compared directly to graded platforms. The label "Sponsored" appears every time 8lends is mentioned.

Why this structure works: grading platforms we earn from creates a conflict only if grades can be bought. They cannot. The conflict would be worse if we hid affiliate income while pretending neutrality. We disclose, you decide. If Maclear's grade drops to B tomorrow because new evidence surfaces, we publish the downgrade and keep earning the lower commission - or the platform ends the relationship. The methodology does not bend.

Corrections policy

Factual errors - wrong regulator name, incorrect yield figure, outdated ownership data - are corrected within 24 hours of notification with evidence. We add a timestamped note at the bottom of the corrected page.

What qualifies: verifiable errors of fact (wrong licence type, incorrect published statistic, outdated regulatory status). Send evidence - regulator register screenshot, audited financial page, platform announcement with URL - to contact.

What does not qualify: disagreement with grade or weighting; disputes over whether a 4-point yield gap is acceptable; requests to emphasise positives over negatives. The methodology and weights are fixed; subjective framing is editorial judgment, not factual error.

Grade appeals: platforms can submit new evidence (regulator licence upgrade, audited financials showing improved capital, documented resolution of prior defaults) for consideration at the next monthly rescore. We do not negotiate grades, but we update scores when facts change.

Frequently asked questions

Keep reading: See the full grade list for every platform from A+ to D, read how to choose a P2P platform using the grades, or check how we earn for full affiliate disclosure.