Crowdpear vs. PeerBerry: Which Platform Is Better?

Crowdpear is the property offshoot from the PeerBerry orbit

PeerBerry has been on the market since 2017, Crowdpear only joined in 2023 - as its own, independently licensed company, not as a branch. Personally and through their ownership structure, though, the two stay closely connected: according to PeerBerry's own statement from August 2022 and an independent analysis by financial writer Jean Galea, the two platforms share two of their three shareholders, the respective third stake traces back to the Aventus group, and Crowdpear's deputy CEO is simultaneously PeerBerry's CEO. The business models are still clearly separate. PeerBerry brokers mostly short-term, unsecured consumer loans with a buyback guarantee, while Crowdpear finances mortgage-backed property loans under its own ECSP crowdfunding licence from the Bank of Lithuania (authorisation code LB002204, granted July 2023).

PeerBerry's safety rests on the Aventus group

PeerBerry is licensed neither as an investment firm nor under the EU crowdfunding regulation; it operates under a national transition regime instead. Protection comes only from the relevant lender's buyback guarantee plus an additional group guarantee, and, by Trofimovas's own account, the large majority of the loans brokered come from Aventus group originators. If a single originator fails, the group steps in. If Aventus itself, or the ownership structure so closely tied to it, runs into trouble, there is no second line of defence: no deposit protection, no statutory investor compensation, no audited figures for PeerBerry or the group.

As reported by PeerBerry, the group posted a 2025 net profit of €95.7M and €225.7M in equity and presents itself as financially robust on that basis. We cannot verify that figure ourselves, though, for lack of an audited statement.

There is a real upside to weigh against this. In practice, the group guarantee has already proven itself. PeerBerry announced in January 2025 the full repayment of €51.4M in war-affected loans, including accrued interest, without investors losing capital. That does not change the fact that the entire safety architecture rests on the creditworthiness of a single company group whose figures cannot really be verified from the outside.

Crowdpear's property collateral has not been through a downturn yet

Crowdpear delivers a lot of what PeerBerry lacks: an ECSP licence, audited and profitable annual accounts, and first-rank mortgages instead of a mere guarantee. There is no buyback guarantee in return - such constructions are not permitted under Lithuanian ECSP supervision. If a loan defaults, the property is enforced instead.

Crowdpear has only been active with investor money since January 2023 and has not been through a full property or interest-rate cycle. A handful of loans are already in enforcement, and the audited 2025 statement shows that sale proceeds first cover the costs incurred in the enforcement process itself, with only what remains after that going to investors. How resilient Lithuanian project properties actually are in a real downturn still remains to be seen. On top of that comes a practical drawback. Without auto-invest, and with periodically limited loan supply, you cannot always deploy your capital right away.

Legally separate, economically closely intertwined

How independent the two platforms really are depends on which level you look at. At the product level, both are cleanly separated: different loan books, different collateral, different balance sheets. If, say, a single PeerBerry consumer loan defaults, its own buyback guarantee kicks in.

At the ownership level, though, there is real overlap. Two of the three stakes are held by the same people at both platforms, the respective third stake traces back to the Aventus group in both cases, and Lekavičius sits on the leadership team of both companies. That is not a formal corporate relationship with a shared balance sheet, but it is not a coincidental resemblance between two independent providers either. If the Aventus group itself ran into serious trouble, that would hit PeerBerry directly through loan quality and both platforms indirectly through the ownership and leadership layer. For the diversification of your P2P portfolio, that means putting money into both platforms gets you two legally separate but economically heavily overlapping addresses. Investors should at least be aware of that.

What happens when a loan defaults?

At PeerBerry, the lender buys back a loan that has fallen 60 days into arrears, principal plus interest, backed by the group guarantee. The mechanism has already passed its real-world test, because PeerBerry repaid the war-affected loans in full according to its own announcement.

At Crowdpear the mechanism works differently. Instead of a buyback, enforcement of the first-rank mortgage on the financed property kicks in - according to the audited statement, the proceeds first cover the costs incurred in the enforcement process itself, with only the remainder going to investors. One documented case from the existing loan book shows this is not a theoretical risk - enforcement of a defaulted loan there is still ongoing, and the value assigned to the collateral taken over sits below the outstanding claim. How completely enforcement succeeds in a broader property downturn will only become clear in the next real crisis - unlike at PeerBerry, which has already been through one.

Who is Crowdpear for, who is PeerBerry for?

Crowdpear suits investors who want a regulated, mortgage-backed property addition with audited figures and are willing to pick projects themselves. Anyone who can live with a periodically limited supply and no auto-invest gets one of the more transparent P2P addresses on the market.

PeerBerry suits investors who want short terms and a proven crisis record on consumer loans, and who knowingly accept the lack of its own EU licence.

Holding both brings less diversification than it might seem at first glance. The ownership overlap means a serious problem at Aventus could hit both addresses at the same time. Anyone who genuinely wants to lower their concentration risk is better off adding a third platform from outside this orbit. How to diversify a P2P portfolio sensibly is covered in the piece on diversification.

In the platform comparison, Crowdpear currently sits one grade above PeerBerry. Regulation, audited figures and mortgage collateral tip the balance. PeerBerry's counterargument is its proven crisis record, something Crowdpear has not had to deliver in its short history.