Methodology
How we rate P2P platforms
Five criteria, fixed weights, documented sources: how the grades in our platform comparison come about — transparent and independent of affiliate interests.
We only rate what we can verify. Every statement behind a grade traces back to a concrete source with an access date — regulator registers, audited annual reports, official statistics. Anything we cannot verify is not assumed; it is scored conservatively and named openly in the platform article.
The five criteria
Each criterion is scored as a whole number from 0 to 10 against fixed evidence questions and written anchors; where the judgement falls between two anchors, we round up. The weighting is deliberately safety-first: the dominant risk in P2P lending is not a low return, but losing your capital.
| Criterion | Weight | What we check |
|---|---|---|
| Safety & regulation | 30% | Licence and supervisor (verified in the register), legal structure of the investment, asset segregation, substance of protection mechanisms such as buyback obligations, collateral, originator skin in the game. |
| Transparency | 25% | Audited annual reports, published default and recovery statistics, identifiable management, complete fee schedule, honest communication — including about problems. |
| Track record & stability | 20% | Years managing investor money, operator profitability, behaviour in stress phases (2020, 2022, the rate shock), volume trend, incidents such as regulatory action or frozen funds. |
| Returns & terms | 15% | Realistic net return after defaults and fees rather than marketing claims — and whether it is adequate for the risk. Unusually high rates count as a risk signal, not a bonus. |
| Investor experience & liquidity | 10% | Minimum investment, auto-invest, secondary market or exit option, tax reporting for German investors, support and usability. |
From points to grade
The overall score is the weighted average of the five criteria, rounded to one decimal. Two guard rules prevent returns from papering over structural weaknesses: if safety & regulation is at 3.0 or below, the grade is capped at C. If transparency is at 3.0 or below, it is capped at B — what we cannot verify does not get an A.
| Grade | Meaning |
|---|---|
| A+ (≥ 9,0) | Outstanding — structurally safe, fully transparent, proven. |
| A (≥ 8,0) | Very good — minor weaknesses, no structural risk identified. |
| B (≥ 6,5) | Solid — usable, but with clearly named weak points. |
| C (≥ 5,0) | With reservations — significant weaknesses, only for experienced investors. |
| D (< 5,0) | Not recommended. |
Which sources count
We work with a fixed source hierarchy. Authoritative sources — regulator registers, audited annual reports, company registers — outrank everything. The platform's own pages (statistics, terms, fee schedules) document facts about its offering, but safety claims are always checked against the register. Reviews, forums and rating portals serve only as leads we follow up — never as evidence for a grade. Where sources conflict, the more conservative value wins.
When information is missing
If a platform does not publish something safety-relevant — audited financials, for instance — we do not treat that as neutral, but as a risk. The gap is named explicitly in the article. Each rating also carries a data-coverage label (good, moderate or patchy) showing how many of our evidence questions could be answered from reliable sources. An honest gap beats a silent assumption.
How current are the ratings?
Every rating carries an as-of date. We re-verify ratings when events warrant it (licence changes, new financials, incidents) and on a regular cycle. Material changes are documented in the Updates section of the platform article — traceable, instead of silently rewriting articles.
Independence
This project is funded through affiliate links. Commissions have no influence on scores: criteria, weights and anchors are fixed before a platform is rated, and apply unchanged to platforms without a partner programme. You can find all ratings in the platform comparison. P2P loans remain an investment with risk up to total loss — a good grade is not investment advice.