All platforms

    PeerBerry vs Maclear

    Head-to-head comparison of PeerBerry (77/100) and Maclear (62/100): yields, default rates, guarantees, secondary market, regulation and minimum investment.

    Side-by-side comparison

    CriterionPeerBerryMaclear
    Crowdscope score77/10062/100
    CountryCroatiaSwitzerland
    Founded20172022
    Loan typesP2P marketplaceBusiness lending
    Indicative yield9%14.5%
    Default rate0%0%
    Regulatory statusNon régulé ECSPNon régulé ECSP
    Minimum investment10 €50 €
    Cumulative funded volume3,300,000,000 €100,000,000 €
    Registered investors117,00035,000
    Secondary marketYesYes
    Auto-investYesNo
    GuaranteesBuyback, Group guaranteeCaution

    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 Maclear — frequently asked questions

    PeerBerry or Maclear: which one should you choose?

    On the Crowdscope framework, PeerBerry scores higher (77/100 versus 62/100). PeerBerry advertises around 9% with a 0% default rate under the Non régulé ECSP regime, while Maclear advertises around 14.5% with a 0% default rate under the Non régulé ECSP regime. The right choice depends on whether you prioritise yield, liquidity or regulatory protection.

    Which of PeerBerry and Maclear offers the higher yield?

    Maclear advertises the higher indicative yield (14.5% versus 9%). A higher advertised yield usually reflects higher credit or liquidity risk, not a better product.

    Which platform is more liquid, PeerBerry or Maclear?

    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 Maclear?

    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