P2P vs a Savings Account: What the Extra Points Are Paying For

The baseline: what a deposit pays and protects

A EUR savings account in a bank supervised by an EU member state regulator pays somewhere between 2.5% and 3.0% in early 2026, depending on the institution and the notice period. The account is protected by the Deposit Guarantee Scheme up to EUR 100,000 per depositor per bank, which means the scheme compensates you if the bank fails, normally within seven working days of the failure being declared. The protection does not cover investment losses, only claims against the bank itself, and it covers principal and accrued interest up to the limit.

You can withdraw on demand or after a short notice period, and the interest is taxable as savings income in your country of residence. The rate is set by the bank and can change, but the principal does not move. That combination of access, protection and predictability is what the deposit offers, and it is the benchmark against which P2P lending has to justify itself.

What P2P lending is offering instead

A P2P lending portfolio targeting 11% is offering roughly eight percentage points over a 3% deposit. Those eight points are not free. They are the price of accepting that you can lose part or all of the principal if borrowers default, if the platform collapses, or if the originator behind the loans fails. No compensation scheme covers borrower defaults, and the platform's supervision covers conduct and transparency, not your capital.

Realised returns across the European P2P market run 1 to 4 percentage points below the advertised figure once you account for defaults, recovery lags and liquidity drag. A platform advertising 11% might deliver 9-10% in practice, which narrows the gap over a deposit to six or seven points. That narrower gap is the real comparison, and it still requires you to accept illiquidity, platform risk and the possibility of losing money.

The comparison at EUR 5,000

At EUR 5,000, a deposit paying 3% returns EUR 150 a year. A P2P portfolio targeting 11% and realising 9.5% returns EUR 475, a gain of EUR 325. Over three years, the cumulative difference is roughly EUR 1,000, assuming no losses in the P2P portfolio and no compounding in either case.

That EUR 1,000 is 20% of the starting capital. If a single platform in your portfolio freezes withdrawals or a cluster of loans defaults, you can lose that EUR 1,000 and more. The question is whether the extra EUR 325 a year is worth the liquidity and loss risk for money you might need at short notice. For most people holding EUR 5,000, the answer is no. The deposit wins on simplicity, access and sleep, and the foregone return is small in absolute terms.

The comparison at EUR 25,000

At EUR 25,000, the deposit returns EUR 750 a year at 3%. The P2P portfolio realising 9.5% returns EUR 2,375, a gain of EUR 1,625. Over five years, the cumulative difference is roughly EUR 8,000, still assuming no losses and no compounding.

That EUR 8,000 is material, but it is still within the deposit protection limit, which means you are giving up guaranteed protection to chase it. The calculus shifts if you already hold other savings in deposits and can afford to lock this EUR 25,000 away for three to five years. In that case, P2P lending starts to make sense as a slice of a larger portfolio, but only if you understand that six distinct mechanisms can lose you money and you are willing to monitor the platforms monthly.

The comparison at EUR 100,000

At EUR 100,000, you are at the deposit protection ceiling. The deposit returns EUR 3,000 a year. The P2P portfolio realising 9.5% returns EUR 9,500, a gain of EUR 6,500. Over five years, the cumulative difference is EUR 32,500, which is a third of the starting capital.

The deposit protection limit forces a choice. You can split the EUR 100,000 across multiple banks to stay under the ceiling at each one, keeping full protection and accepting the administrative overhead. You can move part of it into a government or corporate bond with a higher yield than a deposit but lower than P2P lending. Or you can accept lending risk on part or all of the capital in exchange for the higher return.

Investors holding EUR 100,000 or more often do all three: deposits up to the limit at one or two banks, a bond allocation for predictable income, and a P2P allocation for the overage. That structure keeps the essential liquidity protected and accepts higher risk only on the portion that can afford to lose value. The P2P slice is normally capped at 20-30% of the total, split across four to six platforms to reduce single-platform risk.

When the deposit is genuinely the right answer

The deposit is the right answer when the money has a defined use within two years, when losing 10-20% of it would disrupt other financial goals, or when the account holder does not want to spend time monitoring platforms and reading borrower disclosures. It is also the right answer for anyone who finds the idea of capital loss unacceptable, regardless of the potential return.

P2P lending is not a better deposit. It is a different asset with a different risk profile, and the extra return is compensation for accepting that risk. If the risk feels disproportionate to the return, or if the liquidity constraint feels like a problem, the answer is to stay in the deposit and accept the lower yield. There is no minimum return you are obliged to chase, and giving up EUR 1,000 a year to keep EUR 25,000 accessible and protected is a rational trade-off for most people.

What changes the calculation

The calculation shifts when deposit rates fall below 2%, when the account size exceeds the protection limit by a wide margin, or when the investor already holds a large cash buffer and can afford to lock away a slice for five years. It also shifts when the P2P allocation is split across six platforms instead of one, reducing the impact of a single platform failure to 15-20% of the P2P portion rather than 100%.

Time horizon matters. A three-year P2P loan portfolio requires a five-year investment horizon to allow for recovery lags and secondary market illiquidity. If your horizon is shorter, the deposit's instant access and guaranteed principal make it the better fit, even at a lower return. The extra points from P2P lending are only worth it when you can afford to wait out a stress scenario without needing the money back.

The break-even loss is the percentage of your P2P capital you can lose over five years before the cumulative return falls below what the deposit would have paid. At any account size, a 32% loss wipes out the five-year gain. That is not an extreme scenario. A platform freezing and returning 60 cents on the euro, or two platforms out of six losing 50% each, gets you there. The question is whether you believe the risk of that outcome is lower than 32% over five years, and whether you can handle the outcome if it happens.

The portfolio that splits the difference

Most investors who move into P2P lending do not move all their savings. They hold EUR 10,000 to EUR 30,000 in instant-access deposits for liquidity, put another EUR 20,000 to EUR 50,000 into a notice account or a short-term bond, and allocate EUR 20,000 to EUR 40,000 to P2P lending split across four to six platforms. That structure keeps enough in protected, liquid savings to handle emergencies and short-term goals, and accepts higher risk only on the portion that can afford a five-year lock-up and a realistic chance of loss.

The P2P slice in that structure is targeting 9-11% realised, the bond or notice account is paying 3-4%, and the instant-access deposit is paying 2.5-3%. The blended return across the whole portfolio is roughly 5-6%, depending on the exact split. That is double the deposit rate, achieved by accepting some risk and some illiquidity on part of the capital, while keeping the rest fully protected and accessible. It is a more defensible structure than moving everything into P2P lending and hoping the platforms stay solvent.