PeerBerry vs. Twino: Which Platform Is Better?

Twino is EU-regulated, PeerBerry is not

Both operate in the same niche: short-term P2P consumer loans with a buyback. If a loan falls into arrears, the lender steps in and covers principal plus interest. The two differ in the details.

Twino is an investment firm licensed by Latvijas Banka, authorised since August 2021. There you do not buy a loan claim but a regulated security (an asset-backed security). Your money sits separately from the firm's own assets, and if Twino itself slides into insolvency, a statutory investor protection of up to €20,000 applies.

PeerBerry, by contrast, is licensed neither as an investment firm nor under the EU crowdfunding regulation (ECSP); it currently operates under national transition rules. At PeerBerry you are protected by the buyback alone, plus an extra guarantee from the Aventus and Gofingo group behind it. Compared with Twino that is a weaker construction, which shows accordingly in our rating.

PeerBerry rests entirely on one group

PeerBerry's protection is only as strong as the group behind it, and that group does not publish audited figures. The Aventus group reports a 2025 net profit of €95.7M and €225.7M in equity, financially strong by its own account, but without an audited statement. There are no audited figures for PeerBerry itself either.

On top of that comes the concentration risk. The loans and the guarantee come essentially all from one network. If a single lender fails, the group catches it. But if the parent group itself runs into financial trouble, it can no longer absorb those lender defaults. More than 119,000 investors and over €3.4bn in cumulative volume change nothing about that; it stays a bet on a single name.

This is not scaremongering but the flip side of a model that works without a regulator. You have to trust the group and the market.

Twino has already cost its investors money

Twino scores on licensing and openness, but it has a history PeerBerry does not. Twice, investors had to take real losses. In the Russia crisis Twino offered them only around 80% of their capital, though it did pay the accrued interest in full, and a default in Vietnam cost them about €1.6M in 2024. Back in 2018, after a failed expansion, the auditors put a going-concern note in the accounts. To its credit, Twino is working the rest off in the open: by early 2026 the outstanding war exposure had fallen from around €6.8M to €1.9M.

Twino, too, now hangs on a single source. After pulling out of Russia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Vietnam and the Philippines, its loans come almost entirely from its own Polish lending arm (the NetCredit brand). That is the same concentration as PeerBerry, only on one country instead of one group.

In return, Twino publishes its figures audited by BDO and names realised losses itself.

At Twino you can sell any time, at PeerBerry you cannot

If you want your money before the term ends, Twino is clearly ahead. There is a fee-free secondary market, and with FLEXI Twino offers a daily-access product. How liquid the secondary market really is depends on its (still) small investor base. At PeerBerry you get to your capital quickly only through the short terms; there is no secondary market.

On returns the two are close. Both have delivered roughly double-digit returns for years and PeerBerry kept paying reliably even through the war crisis. Twino has withheld Latvian withholding tax on interest since 2022, which you can credit via the double-taxation treaty. That is a bit of extra paperwork and only pays off on larger amounts.

What happens when a loan defaults?

At both, the buyback kicks in first: if a loan falls into arrears, the group's own lender has to replace principal and interest, at PeerBerry after 60 days.

Structurally the protection works differently but ends at the same place. At Twino you buy a security whose repayment the originator must ensure; at PeerBerry the lender buys the defaulted loan back directly. In both cases it is ultimately the balance sheet of one company group that pays, because there is no broad network of independent lenders as at Mintos.

PeerBerry passed the hardest test. Together with Aventus and Gofingo, the platform repaid around €50.2M, or 99.9% of the war-affected loans, by mid-December 2024, the Russia loans in full. Investors lost virtually no capital in the process. Twino, in the same situation, offered only around 80%. That proven crisis record is a clear strength of PeerBerry, something Twino cannot show so far.

We want to clear up one common misunderstanding here. At Twino a statutory investor protection of up to €20,000 applies, but only if the investment firm itself goes insolvent, not if a loan defaults. Against loan defaults, only the buyback protects you at either platform.

Who is PeerBerry for, who is Twino for?

PeerBerry is for investors who trust the proven crisis record and accept short terms as their only exit. There is no secondary market, and the safety stands or falls with a group whose figures you cannot check. Anyone who takes that on deliberately gets one of the highest-yielding short-term addresses on the market.

Twino is for investors who care more about the EU licence, audited figures and an exit any time via the secondary market or the daily FLEXI.

You can hold both, but the combination brings little diversification. Both rely on short-term consumer loans with buyback, and both hang on a single company group each. Rather than betting on short-term loans alone, you are better off adding further building blocks for a well-diversified portfolio. More on that in the piece on diversification.

In the platform comparison, Twino sits one grade above PeerBerry. Twino wins on regulation, audited figures and liquidity, but has already imposed losses on its investors. PeerBerry is structurally thinner, but came through the worst case with virtually no loss. If you want regulation and an exit any time, take Twino. If you trust the crisis record and do not need the money at short notice, PeerBerry is a deliberate bet on a strong group.