How We Rate: Five Criteria, Fixed Weights

Why this method exists

Most P2P comparison sites score platforms after establishing commercial relationships with them. That creates an incentive to present the paying platform as the strongest choice, even when public facts do not support that position. crowdhive-reviews.com does the opposite: the scoring method was published and applied to all 19 tracked European platforms before any commercial contact was made. Maclear became this site's affiliate partner in July 2026, after it had already been scored and ranked. Its rank is 17th of 19, with 27 points out of 50, and that has not changed since the partnership began.

The method is transparent, repeatable, and based on five attributes that matter to retail investors comparing platforms: regulatory protection, operational track record, return transparency, structural clarity, and liquidity. Each criterion has a published rubric. Scores are editorial opinion, reviewed at least once per quarter, and updated when material public facts change.

The five criteria

1. Investor protection (0-10 points)

This criterion measures the type of financial regulator licence a platform holds and the jurisdiction that issued it. A MiFID II investment-firm licence scores highest because it requires minimum capital buffers, conduct-of-business rules, client-money segregation, and ongoing supervisory reporting. Platforms holding MiFID II licences from Latvijas Banka or the Central Bank of Ireland score 10 out of 10 on this criterion.

ECSP crowdfunding licences, introduced under the 2021 European Crowdfunding Service Providers Regulation, score second. ECSP licences require lighter capital buffers than MiFID II but still mandate investor-information standards and regulator oversight. Platforms holding ECSP licences from the Bank of Lithuania, EFSA Estonia, or Latvijas Banka score 7 out of 10.

Swiss SRO memberships that cover only anti-money-laundering compliance, without any investor-compensation fund or conduct oversight, score 3 out of 10. Platforms operating without a financial regulator - common in Croatia, Hungary, and some newer Estonian platforms - score 0 out of 10. This is not a statement about fraud risk; it is a statement about the absence of a compensation scheme or conduct authority if something goes wrong.

2. Track record (0-10 points)

Track record combines three sub-factors: years operating, reported loan volume, and whether a buyback guarantee has a history behind it. A platform that has operated for eight years or more, reported cumulative loan volume above EUR 500 million, and maintained a buyback guarantee through at least one economic downturn scores 10 out of 10. A platform launched in the past two years with no published volume data and no buyback scores 2 or 3 out of 10.

The rubric penalises platforms that do not publish cumulative loan volume or that report only a single assets-under-management snapshot, because a snapshot can fall as well as rise and does not show the full flow of capital through the platform. Platforms that report volume quarterly or annually in a transparent, auditable format score higher than those that publish a single AUM figure once per year.

Buyback guarantees are scored only if they have been tested. A platform that introduced a buyback promise in 2025 but has not yet processed a significant number of defaults scores lower than a platform that has operated a buyback through multiple default cycles. This distinction matters because a buyback guarantee is only as strong as the loan originator or platform balance sheet behind it.

3. Return transparency (0-10 points)

Return transparency measures how clearly and consistently a platform publishes its target or realised return range. A platform that publishes a narrow return range - for example, 10-11% - scores higher than a platform that publishes a wide range such as 7-14%, because a narrow range suggests more predictable loan-pricing discipline. A platform that publishes no return range at all, or publishes only selected loan-level rates without a portfolio-wide figure, scores 0 out of 10 on this criterion.

The rubric distinguishes between advertised target returns and realised net returns. Advertised returns score if they are published prominently and updated at least annually. Realised net returns - the actual percentage earned by investors after defaults, fees, and buyback failures - score higher, but fewer than half of the 19 tracked platforms publish realised figures consistently.

Platforms that publish only gross returns without subtracting platform fees score lower than those that publish net figures. This criterion does not evaluate whether the published return is achievable or sustainable; it evaluates only whether the platform is transparent about what it is targeting or delivering.

4. Structural clarity (0-10 points)

Structural clarity combines two sub-factors: the diversity of loan types a platform offers and the basis on which it reports loan volume. A platform that offers multiple loan types - consumer, business, real estate, invoice finance - and reports cumulative volume across all types scores higher than a platform that offers a single loan type or reports volume inconsistently.

Loan-type diversity scores because it gives investors more options to build a balanced portfolio within one platform, but it also scores because platforms with multiple loan types tend to publish more detailed breakdowns and are more transparent about how capital flows through each segment. A platform that reports only aggregated AUM without breaking down loan types or performance by segment scores lower.

The rubric also penalises platforms that change reporting standards frequently or that publish volume data in non-comparable formats across updates. Consistency and comparability matter as much as the raw diversity of loan types.

5. Liquidity and exit (0-10 points)

Liquidity measures how easily an investor can exit a position before loan maturity. A platform with an active secondary market where loans can be sold at or near par scores highest. A platform with no secondary market and no early-exit option scores lowest. Entry minimum - the smallest amount required to open an account - adjusts the score slightly: a EUR 10 minimum scores higher than a EUR 500 minimum because lower minimums make it easier for new investors to test the platform with limited capital.

Secondary markets are scored on whether they exist, not on whether they are liquid in practice. A platform that operates a secondary market but consistently sees no bids scores the same as a platform with an active, liquid market, because the rubric measures structural availability rather than real-time depth. This is a known limitation and may be refined in future method updates.

How scores turn into bands

Each platform receives a total score out of 50 points. The bands are:

• Excellent (40-50 points): top-tier regulatory protection, long track record, narrow published return range, multiple loan types with transparent reporting, and an active secondary market.
• Strong (30-39 points): solid regulatory coverage, established track record, clear return transparency, good structural clarity, and at least one liquidity option.
• Fair (20-29 points): some regulatory coverage or track record, partial return transparency, limited structural clarity or liquidity.
• Weak (10-19 points): minimal regulatory protection, short track record or inconsistent reporting, poor return transparency, and limited liquidity.
• Avoid (0-9 points): no regulator, no published volume or return data, or a combination of red flags that make the platform unsuitable for retail capital.

Scores are editorial opinion. They are reviewed at least once per quarter and updated when material public facts change - a new regulator licence, a verified volume milestone, a published return-range update. Commercial relationships do not trigger score changes.

Why Maclear ranks 17th

Maclear is crowdhive-reviews.com's affiliate partner and pays a commission when a reader opens an account through this site's links. Under the published five-criterion method, Maclear scores 27 out of 50 points and ranks 17th of 19 tracked platforms. It falls into the Fair band.

Maclear scores 3 out of 10 on investor protection because it holds a Swiss SRO membership under PolyReg, which covers only anti-money-laundering compliance and does not include a compensation fund or conduct oversight. It scores 6 out of 10 on track record because it has operated since 2022 and reports loan volume quarterly, but it does not have a long enough history to score higher. It scores 7 out of 10 on return transparency because it publishes a narrow target return range of 14.5-14.9%. It scores 6 out of 10 on structural clarity because it offers SME, real estate, and factoring loans with transparent segment reporting. It scores 5 out of 10 on liquidity because it has no secondary market and requires a EUR 50 entry minimum.

The partnership with Maclear began in July 2026, after the platform had already been scored. The score has not changed since the partnership began because no material public facts about Maclear's regulation, track record, return transparency, structure, or liquidity have changed. If Maclear obtains a MiFID II or ECSP licence, or if it launches a secondary market, the score will be reviewed and may rise. If it stops publishing return ranges or changes reporting standards, the score may fall.

What this method does not measure

The five-criterion method does not measure platform user experience, customer-support quality, website speed, or mobile-app features. It does not measure the creditworthiness of individual loan originators or the quality of underlying collateral. It does not predict future returns or default rates. It measures only the structural attributes that affect an investor's ability to assess risk, exit a position, and rely on regulatory backstops if something goes wrong.

The method is not a recommendation to invest in any platform. Every platform listed on crowdhive-reviews.com carries a risk of partial or total loss of capital. No compensation scheme covers borrower defaults. Scores are one input into an investment decision, not the only input. Verify all terms directly with each platform before investing, and consult a licensed advisor if you are unsure whether P2P lending suits your financial situation.