PeerBerry vs Fagura
Head-to-head comparison of PeerBerry (77/100) and Fagura (69/100): yields, default rates, guarantees, secondary market, regulation and minimum investment.
Side-by-side comparison
| Criterion | PeerBerry | Fagura |
|---|---|---|
| Crowdscope score | 77/100 | 69/100 |
| Country | Croatia | Moldova |
| Founded | 2017 | 2019 |
| Loan types | P2P marketplace | Consumer lending, Business lending |
| Indicative yield | 9% | 12% |
| Default rate | 0% | 4.5% |
| Regulatory status | Non régulé ECSP | CNPF Moldova |
| Minimum investment | 10 € | 10 € |
| Cumulative funded volume | 3,300,000,000 € | 20,000,000 € |
| Registered investors | 117,000 | 6,000 |
| Secondary market | Yes | Yes |
| Auto-invest | Yes | Yes |
| Guarantees | Buyback, Group guarantee | Fonds de provision, Recouvrement |
Crowdscope verdict
PeerBerry takes the higher Crowdscope score (77/100) in this head-to-head, driven by its mix of track record, regulation, guarantees and liquidity. Scores measure structural robustness, not expected return — capital is at risk on both platforms and diversifying across several operators remains the primary risk-control tool.
PeerBerry vs Fagura — frequently asked questions
PeerBerry or Fagura: which one should you choose?
On the Crowdscope framework, PeerBerry scores higher (77/100 versus 69/100). PeerBerry advertises around 9% with a 0% default rate under the Non régulé ECSP regime, while Fagura advertises around 12% with a 4.5% default rate under the CNPF Moldova regime. The right choice depends on whether you prioritise yield, liquidity or regulatory protection.
Which of PeerBerry and Fagura offers the higher yield?
Fagura advertises the higher indicative yield (12% versus 9%). A higher advertised yield usually reflects higher credit or liquidity risk, not a better product.
Which platform is more liquid, PeerBerry or Fagura?
Both platforms operate a secondary market, so positions can be listed for sale before maturity — subject to buyer demand.
Can you invest on both PeerBerry and Fagura?
Yes. Diversifying across several platforms is a common way to limit platform-failure risk, since it spreads exposure across different originators, jurisdictions and regulatory regimes. Capital remains at risk on both.
Last updated: · Reviewed by the Crowdscope editorial team