How We Score Platforms: Five Criteria, Fixed Weights

The Five Criteria

Every platform on this site is scored against the same five criteria. Each criterion receives a raw score from 0 to 100, then those scores are multiplied by the weights below to produce the final match percentage.

Investor Protection - 30%

Which authority supervises the platform, under which framework, and whether any compensation scheme applies. A MiFID II licence from a Baltic regulator brings the EUR 20,000 investor compensation scheme on eligible claims against the firm itself, but no compensation scheme covers borrower defaults. An ECSP licence under the crowdfunding regulation brings no compensation fund at all. A Swiss SRO registration is AML supervision only, with no compensation fund. Platforms with no licence score lowest on this criterion.

Execution Record - 25%

How reliably money arrives when it is due. This criterion looks at defaults, recoveries, buyback performance where one is offered, and whether the platform has ever frozen withdrawals. A perfect record over five years scores near 100. Platforms in workout or with suspended investor access score under 50.

Return Honesty - 20%

How close realised returns run to the advertised figure. Advertised yields are targets, not promises, and realised returns are normally 1 to 4 percentage points lower once fees, defaults and timing effects are counted. Platforms whose realised returns match the advertised band score highly. Those with a wide gap, or insufficient data to verify the claim, score lower.

Structural Transparency - 15%

Originator concentration, ownership clarity, and the quality of published data. A platform that sources from ten originators with no ownership overlap scores better than one sourcing 80% of its loans from a single related entity. Clear ownership structures and regular public reporting lift the score. Ownership networks that are difficult to trace, or statements that diverge from filed accounts, lower it.

Liquidity and Exit - 10%

How quickly you can get your money back out. A functioning secondary market with tight spreads scores highly. Auto-invest features that let you scale down your position gradually add points. Long lock-ups with no early exit option score lowest. This criterion carries the smallest weight because you choose the exposure when you invest.

Fixed Weights, Tested Weightings

The five weights above were set before any platform was scored. We then tested four alternative weightings to check whether the choice of weights was driving Maclear to the top of the ranking. Under all four alternative models, Maclear ranked between 8th and 12th. It does not reach first place under any weighting we tested, which is why it sits 10th on the full comparison table despite being our commercial partner.

The weights reflect our editorial view of what matters most to retail investors in 2026. Regulatory supervision carries the highest weight because it determines what happens when something goes wrong. Execution record is second because a platform that has never missed a payment is worth more than one with a strong licence but a patchy record. Return honesty weighs heavily because inflated advertising misleads allocation decisions. Transparency and liquidity matter, but less than the first three.

Bands and Presentation

The final match percentage falls into one of three bands. Platforms scoring 70% or above appear in green. Those between 50% and 69% appear in amber. Below 50% is red. The band tells you at a glance how the platform compares with the group, but the exact percentage is shown on every review page and the comparison table.

Maclear scores 65%, which places it in the amber band and 10th position. Three platforms score 80%, the joint highest on the site. No platform scores above 80% because no platform is perfect across all five criteria.

Editorial Opinion, Monthly Review

These scores are editorial opinion, not regulatory guidance or investment advice. We review every score monthly as new data arrives. When a platform changes its licence, enters workout, or publishes annual results, the relevant criterion score is updated and the match percentage recalculated. The date of record appears at the top of each review page.

Platform facts come from published disclosures, regulator registers, and annual accounts. Where data is insufficient to score a criterion reliably, we state that in the review and score conservatively. 8lends carries a Sponsored label and sits outside the ranking because insufficient verifiable track-record data exists to score it on the same basis as the other 18 platforms.

Capital at risk. Nothing here is investment, tax or legal advice, and nothing here is a personal recommendation. Check the platform's own disclosures before you invest.

Read the full editorial policy, or return to the platform comparison.