Affiliate disclosure. When you sign up via our links we may earn a commission. Rankings stay independent. Read full disclosure →
Up to 25% APR
EN
Two roads diverging — choosing between Mintos and PeerBerry.
Comparison

Mintos vs PeerBerry: 2026 Comparison — Which Is the Better P2P Investing Platform?

Mintos vs PeerBerry 2026 — independent side-by-side comparison of yields, regulation, AUM, defaults, and concentration risk. Which P2P platform should you choose?

By Daniel Brenner, Senior Editor · Updated 2026-05-18

Mintos vs PeerBerry: 2026 Comparison — Which Is the Better P2P Investing Platform?

If you have spent any time researching peer-to-peer (P2P) investing in Europe, two names keep showing up in almost every shortlist: Mintos and PeerBerry. Together they account for over €15 billion in lifetime funded loans and well over 800,000 registered investors. This Mintos vs PeerBerry comparison breaks down the 2026 reality on both — the regulatory tier each one sits in, the yields investors actually receive, the structural risks built into each business model, and which one is the better starting point depending on what you are looking for.

Both platforms are credible. Neither is the highest-yielding option in Europe (that title belongs to Maclear, our #1 ranked platform, and a handful of smaller niches). What Mintos and PeerBerry offer is scale, longevity, and a real track record. They have both lived through crises — Mintos through the 2020 COVID originator defaults and the 2022 Russia/Ukraine exposure, PeerBerry through the same Ukraine war that froze €51 million of its loan book — and they have come out the other side. How well they came out is one of the central questions of this article.

📊 CrowdIndex Editor’s Pick: Maclear ranks #1 of 19 European P2P platforms (Score 9.2/10). Read full review →

TL;DR — Mintos vs PeerBerry in 5 Bullets

  • Regulation: Mintos holds a full MiFID II Investment Firm license from Latvijas Banka (the Latvian central bank), with formal EU investor compensation up to €20,000 per investor. PeerBerry is unregulated as of May 2026 — an ECSP (European Crowdfunding Service Provider) application is pending with the Bank of Lithuania but has been pending since autumn 2024. Mintos wins on regulation, decisively.
  • Track record on capital losses: Mintos has roughly €122–130 million stuck in recovery (around 18.7% of the active portfolio) from past originator failures. PeerBerry sits at 0% in recovery, with €51.4 million in war-affected loans fully repaid by December 2024. PeerBerry wins on the cleaner historical track record.
  • Concentration risk: Mintos diversifies across 60+ loan originators in 33 countries. PeerBerry depends heavily on the Aventus Group — over 83% of its loan book comes from a single related-party group. Mintos wins on diversification.
  • Yields: Mintos advertises around 11.5% but realised long-term net returns are closer to 9% per year. PeerBerry’s declared average is 11.04%, with loyalty boosts up to +1%. PeerBerry edges ahead on yield, though the gap is smaller than headline numbers suggest.
  • Scale and breadth: Mintos has 700,000+ investors, €12.4 billion lifetime volume, and a multi-asset product range (Notes, money market, ETFs, bonds, real estate, crypto ETPs). PeerBerry has 118,000+ investors, €3.35 billion lifetime, and a single-product focus (loans). Mintos wins on scale and product range.

If you want a regulated, diversified core position with the strongest investor protection available in EU retail P2P, Mintos is the right starting point. If you want a cleaner historical track record at slightly higher yields, with a proven group-guarantee mechanism, PeerBerry is the strongest second-position platform to hold alongside it.

Quick-Comparison Table

DimensionMintosPeerBerry
Founded2015 (Riga, Latvia)2017 (Zagreb, Croatia; ops Vilnius)
RegulatorLatvijas Banka — MiFID II Investment Firm (license 06.06.08.719/534) + EMI licenseNone — ECSP application pending with Bank of Lithuania since autumn 2024
Investor compensation schemeYes — up to €20,000 per investor (EU Directive 97/9/EC, covers Notes)No
Cumulative volume€12.4 billion+ since 2015€3.35 billion since 2017
Outstanding portfolio (AUM)~€500–654 million (April 2026)€119.6 million (March 2026)
Total investors700,000+118,000+
Loan originators60+ active across 33 countries28 active, ~83% from Aventus Group
Average yield (net)~9–11% (advertised 11.5%)11.04% declared + loyalty +0.5% to +1%
Minimum investment€50 per Note€10 per loan
Secondary marketYes — 0.85% seller fee (since May 2025)Yes — 0% fee, 6-month minimum holding (launched 15 Jan 2026)
Welcome bonusNone active as of May 2026 (WEALTH26 ended 30 April 2026)+0.5% interest boost for 90 days
Default / recovery status~€122–130M in recovery (~18.7%) from 2020 COVID + 2022 Russia waves0% in recovery; €51.4M war loans fully repaid Dec 2024
Risk profileLoan-originator middleman model — diversified counterparty riskSingle-group concentration — Aventus dependency
Best forFirst-time EU investors who want the strongest regulatorInvestors seeking a proven group-guarantee at higher yields, as a second platform

Mintos at a Glance

Mintos is the largest P2P investment platform in Europe by lifetime volume and the only one in the retail segment that holds a full MiFID II Investment Firm license. Founded in Riga, Latvia in 2015, it has funded over €12.4 billion in loans across 700,000+ investors. Its core product is the Note — a regulated security backed by underlying loan portfolios originated by 60+ third-party lending companies across 33 countries. When you invest on Mintos, you are not lending directly to a borrower. You are buying a security that represents a slice of a loan book run by an originator like Eleving/Mogo, IuteCredit, or DelfinGroup.

The MiFID II license (under license number 06.06.08.719/534, issued August 2021) carries one decisive feature: Mintos investors are covered by the EU investor compensation scheme under Directive 97/9/EC, up to 90% of net losses with a €20,000 cap per investor, in scenarios where Mintos itself fails to return client securities or cash. No other large EU P2P platform offers this. This is the structural reason Mintos is the default first platform for EU investors entering the asset class — it sits one regulatory tier above the rest of the market.

Mintos’s yields reflect that regulatory cost. Advertised average return is 11.5%, but the most-cited independent long-term reviewer — Jean Galea, after nine years and €150,000 invested — reports closer to 9% net after defaults and fees. The platform also runs a working secondary market with a 0.85% seller fee (since May 2025), an AutoInvest engine (0.29%/year management fee on new investments), and a multi-asset product range that extends beyond loans into money market cash (Smart Cash, run through BlackRock), corporate bonds, ETFs, real estate, and crypto ETPs. In 2026, Mintos is best understood as a regulated multi-asset broker that happens to have P2P loans as its anchor product.

The trade-off is the loan-originator middleman model. Twice in Mintos’s history that model has produced large recovery problems. In 2020, the COVID crisis took down 17 loan originators with roughly €118 million at risk (per ExploreP2P / Kristaps Mors analysis). In 2022, the Russia-Ukraine war led Mintos to immediately freeze 8 Russian originators (Creditter, DoZarplati, EcoFinance, Kviku, Lime, Mikro Kapital, Mokka, SOSCREDIT) and exclude Belarusian loans. As of April 2026, approximately €122–130 million remains in recovery — about 18.7% of the outstanding portfolio. The buyback obligation on individual loans is exactly that — an originator obligation, not a Mintos guarantee — and when the originator itself fails, investors enter the recovery queue.

For the full breakdown of Mintos’s regulatory framework, recovery dynamics, and the Kesenfelds-related-party conflict of interest, see the complete Mintos review.

PeerBerry at a Glance

PeerBerry is Europe’s second-largest P2P marketplace by lifetime volume and one of the cleanest historical track records in the segment. Founded in November 2017, headquartered in Zagreb, Croatia, with operations in Vilnius, Lithuania, the platform has funded €3.35 billion in cumulative loans and serves 118,000+ investors. Its model is simpler than Mintos’s: loans are originated by 28 lending companies, almost all carry a buyback guarantee (the originator repurchases the loan with accrued interest if the borrower goes more than 60 days late), and the two main partner groups — Aventus and Gofingo — provide an additional group-level cross-guarantee.

The piece of evidence that defines PeerBerry’s credibility is the Ukrainian war-loans episode. In February 2022, around €51.4 million of PeerBerry’s loan book was tied to borrowers in Ukraine and Russia and got frozen by the war. By 16 December 2024, every single one of those loans had been repaid to investors in full, with accrued interest, through the Aventus group guarantee. The 33-month resolution is the clearest stress test any large European P2P platform has been through and out of in the modern era. For investors evaluating whether marketing claims about “buyback” and “group guarantee” mean anything in practice, this is the strongest piece of real evidence in the entire market.

The yields are competitive without being aggressive. The declared average rate is 11.04%, with loyalty tiers that add up to +1% for portfolios above €40,000 (Silver from €10K = +0.5%, Gold from €25K = +0.75%, Platinum from €40K = +1%). The minimum investment is €10 per loan, making PeerBerry one of the lowest-barrier platforms in the segment. A secondary market launched on 15 January 2026 — zero fees on both sides, six-month minimum holding before listing, listings stay live for 14 days — closing the structural liquidity gap that had been the platform’s main weakness for years.

The catch — the thing every Mintos vs PeerBerry comparison eventually reaches — is concentration. Of PeerBerry’s 28 active originators, around 17 belong to the Aventus Group, and per analysis by P2P Empire and re:think P2P, Aventus represents over 83% of the loan book by volume. The country-level diversification across 15 countries is real, but the credit-risk diversification is much narrower. If anything ever happened to Aventus — operationally, financially, or regulatorily — it would hit the entire PeerBerry investor base at the same time.

A second structural feature worth understanding: PeerBerry’s ownership overlaps directly with Aventus and with CrowdIndex-Crowdpear, its real-estate-focused sister platform. PeerBerry’s largest shareholder, Andrejus Trofimovas, holds 50% of the platform and is simultaneously the CEO of Aventus Group — meaning the largest loan originator on his own platform is one he runs. CEO Arūnas Lekavičius is also CEO of Crowdpear, and two of PeerBerry’s three shareholders also own Crowdpear. This is a single-management cluster across three entities; there is no independent supervisory layer between them.

For the full dossier on PeerBerry’s track record, the war-loans episode, the Aventus relationship, and the ECSP application status, see the complete PeerBerry review.

Mintos vs PeerBerry: Yields and Returns

In a direct Mintos vs PeerBerry comparison, PeerBerry has the edge on yield — but the gap is smaller than the headline numbers make it look.

Mintos’s advertised average is 11.5%, but multi-year independent reviewers (Jean Galea over nine years, P2P Empire across multiple annual updates) consistently report net annualized returns closer to 9% after defaults, fees, and recovery drag. The AutoInvest management fee (0.29%/year on new investments since May 2025) and the secondary market seller fee (0.85% since May 2025) both pull effective returns slightly below the gross rate. The 18.7% of the portfolio in recovery is the largest drag — for every euro currently waiting on a defaulted originator workout, the investor is earning no interest while the principal is frozen.

PeerBerry’s declared average is 11.04%, and because the platform reports 0% in recovery, the realised net return tracks much closer to the declared rate. Loyalty tiers add real yield: a Silver portfolio (€10K+) gets +0.5%, Gold (€25K+) gets +0.75%, Platinum (€40K+) gets +1%. For an investor holding €25K, the effective rate is closer to 11.8%. There are no platform management fees on AutoInvest, and the new secondary market is fee-free on both sides.

On a like-for-like basis, PeerBerry currently delivers roughly 1.5 to 2.5 percentage points more in realised net yield than Mintos for retail portfolios in the €5K–€40K range. The reason is structural: PeerBerry’s lower regulatory burden (no MiFID II compliance, custody, audit, or investor compensation contributions) and its lack of an originator-middleman margin both flow back to the investor. The reason the gap is not larger — and the reason this is not a one-sided “PeerBerry wins” — is that the regulatory cost on Mintos is what produces the €20,000 investor compensation scheme. The 1.5–2.5% yield gap is the explicit price of that protection.

Historically, both platforms have stayed within their stated ranges across multi-year cycles. Neither has shown a pattern of headline yields collapsing in practice (which has happened on platforms like Reinvest24 or InSoil/HeavyFinance, where advertised returns of 12% became realised returns of 4–5%). On the yield question alone, PeerBerry is the better-paying platform of the two — but yield is one dimension of five.

Mintos vs PeerBerry: Regulation and Investor Protection

This is the dimension where the Mintos vs PeerBerry decision is the least ambiguous. Mintos sits one full regulatory tier above PeerBerry, and the difference is structural rather than cosmetic.

Mintos holds a MiFID II Investment Firm license from Latvijas Banka — the same regulatory framework that covers banks and investment firms across the EU. MiFID II (the EU’s main investment-firm regulation) imposes obligations on capital requirements, governance, custody of client assets, conflict-of-interest disclosure, suitability assessment, and ongoing supervision. The license number is publicly searchable (06.06.08.719/534), the investor compensation scheme is real (up to €20,000 per investor under Directive 97/9/EC), and Latvijas Banka has the legal authority to revoke the license if Mintos fails to comply. Mintos also holds an EMI (Electronic Money Institution) license for handling client funds, which means client cash sits in segregated safeguarding accounts at EU partner banks.

PeerBerry holds no investment-firm license. It is registered as Peerberry d.o.o., a Croatian operating company, with no MiFID II, no ECSP, and no EMI status as of May 2026. Loans are structured as claims rather than as securities — a legally weaker arrangement that puts them outside MiFID II scope. There is no government-backed investor compensation scheme. All investor protection comes from contractual buyback obligations on individual loans plus the group-level guarantees from Aventus and Gofingo. These are private commitments, not regulator-backed protections.

PeerBerry announced an ECSP application with the Bank of Lithuania in autumn 2024, but as of May 2026 no public status update has been published. If and when the license arrives, PeerBerry will rise from unregulated to ECSP-licensed (one tier below Mintos’s MiFID II). It will not, however, gain access to a MiFID II-grade investor compensation scheme — ECSP is a lighter framework specifically designed for crowdfunding platforms.

What does this difference mean in practice? Two scenarios capture it:

  • Scenario A: the platform itself fails. If Mintos as a company collapses and fails to return investor Notes or cash, the EU investor compensation scheme covers up to 90% of net losses with a €20,000 cap per investor. If PeerBerry as a company collapses, there is no scheme — investors rely on whatever assets and counter-party claims can be recovered through normal corporate insolvency proceedings, which is a much weaker outcome.
  • Scenario B: a loan originator fails. If a Mintos originator fails (which has happened 17 times in 2020 and 8 times in 2022), the buyback does not work and investors enter recovery — the €20,000 compensation scheme does not cover loan-originator failures. If a PeerBerry originator fails, the Aventus or Gofingo group-level guarantee kicks in (this is what happened with the Ukraine war loans). The group guarantee has worked in practice, but it is a private contractual promise, not a regulator-enforced scheme.

For an investor making a first-time allocation to EU P2P, the regulatory question is usually the most important one. On regulation, Mintos is the safer choice — full stop. For the deeper dive into MiFID II vs ECSP vs SRO frameworks across the European platform landscape, see P2P-Regulation-Explained.

Concentration Risk Compared

The Mintos vs PeerBerry comparison on concentration risk is the mirror image of the regulation comparison — and this is where Mintos pulls ahead structurally.

Mintos’s diversification is real and quantifiable: 60+ active loan originators across 33 countries, spread across consumer, SME, real estate, and short-term lending categories. An investor using AutoInvest with reasonable diversification settings can spread exposure across 30 to 50 independent counterparties in a single portfolio. When the COVID crisis took down 17 originators in 2020, that was a large number — but it was 17 out of 60+, not 17 out of 17. When the Russia-Ukraine war forced freezes on 8 Russian originators in 2022, that was a regional concentration problem, but the rest of the portfolio (originators in Latvia, Lithuania, Spain, Mexico, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and beyond) continued operating normally.

PeerBerry’s diversification is much narrower than the surface suggests. Of 28 active originators, around 17 belong to Aventus Group and the remaining concentration is also high. The 83% figure is the one to remember: over 83% of PeerBerry’s loan book sits with a single related-party group. The country-level diversification (loans across 15 countries) is real at the geographic level, but at the credit-risk level — the level that actually matters when something fails — it is much closer to a single-counterparty exposure than a diversified portfolio.

The risk is not theoretical. The 2022 Ukraine war episode is exactly the kind of single-event shock that hits a concentrated portfolio harder than a diversified one. €51.4 million — about one third of PeerBerry’s loan book at the time — was frozen overnight. The reason investors got their money back is precisely that Aventus, as the single group, had the equity and operational capacity to honor the group guarantee across a 33-month workout. That is the strongest possible outcome from a concentrated structure. It is also, by definition, dependent on Aventus continuing to be willing and able to honor that guarantee. There is no independent regulator with the authority to compel Aventus if it ever could not or would not.

For PeerBerry investors, the structural truth is this: you are not really diversifying across 28 originators. You are taking a concentrated bet on the Aventus Group, with the platform’s other 11 originators providing thin marginal diversification. This is not necessarily a bad bet — Aventus is financially strong on paper (€225.7M equity, €95.7M net profit in 2025) and has now passed the most credible stress test any European P2P originator has been through. But it is fundamentally a different risk profile from Mintos.

For the broader framework on how to actually build a diversified P2P portfolio across multiple platforms and originator clusters, see Diversified-P2P-Portfolio.

Liquidity (Secondary Markets)

Both platforms now operate secondary markets where investors can sell loans before maturity. For most of P2P history, this was a feature that either did not exist or worked poorly. As of 2026, both Mintos and PeerBerry have functioning secondary markets — but the execution differs.

Mintos’s secondary market is the largest in EU P2P by a wide margin. It has existed for years, is fully integrated into the platform UI on both desktop and mobile, and processes meaningful daily volume across thousands of Notes. Buying on the secondary market is free; selling carries a 0.85% seller fee since May 2025 (up from earlier fee-free trading). For liquid Notes — short-term consumer loans from large originators — execution is typically same-day. For longer-duration or recovery-position Notes, listings can sit for days or weeks and may require discounts.

PeerBerry’s secondary market launched on 15 January 2026 — a structural liquidity gap that had been the platform’s most-cited weakness for years was finally closed. The execution is currently simpler and cheaper than Mintos’s in some respects: zero fees for both buyer and seller, listings stay live for 14 days, discounts of up to 50% are allowed. The catches are: there is a six-month minimum holding period before you can list a loan for sale (Mintos has no holding-period requirement); the feature is desktop-only for now (a mobile version has been announced but no date confirmed); and total volume is still small (€389,585 in March 2026, the second full month of operation).

On the liquidity question, the practical answer in 2026 is: Mintos delivers liquidity at scale today for investors who need confidence they can exit positions when they want to. PeerBerry’s market is structurally promising — zero fees and direct UI integration are both good design choices — but it is in its first six months of operation and volume is thin. If liquidity is a priority for your portfolio (for example, if you plan to draw down funds within a defined timeframe), Mintos is the more reliable choice as of mid-2026. PeerBerry’s market should be re-evaluated in 12 months once volume builds.

Which Should You Choose?

Here is a decision framework for the Mintos vs PeerBerry question, based on how the two platforms actually compare across the five dimensions above:

Choose Mintos if:

  • This is your first allocation to EU P2P and regulatory protection is your priority.
  • You want exposure across many independent loan originators rather than a single group.
  • You value a working secondary market that has been operating at scale for years.
  • You want a multi-asset wrapper (loans, money market cash, bonds, ETFs, real estate, crypto ETPs) inside a single MiFID II-regulated platform.
  • You are prepared to accept a net yield around 9–11% in exchange for the regulator-backed €20,000 investor compensation scheme.

Choose PeerBerry if:

  • You already hold a regulated foundation (Mintos, Nectaro, or another MiFID II / ECSP platform) and want to add a second platform with higher net yields.
  • You want a cleaner historical track record on capital losses — 0% in recovery, with a fully repaid war-loans episode as evidence.
  • You can tolerate single-group concentration (Aventus dependency) as the central risk.
  • You value the loyalty-tier structure (up to +1% boost) and plan to grow a portfolio above €25K.
  • You are comfortable with no government-backed compensation scheme while you wait to see whether the ECSP application gets approved.

Use both if:

  • You are building a diversified P2P allocation of meaningful size (typically €10K+).
  • You want Mintos as the regulated core (60-70% of P2P allocation) and PeerBerry as the higher-yield satellite (20-30% of P2P allocation), with a third platform (often Maclear — CrowdIndex’s #1 ranked platform for top-end yield at 14.5%–14.9% — or CrowdIndex-Crowdpear for ECSP-licensed real-estate exposure) rounding out the rest.
  • You want to hold the structural diversification benefit of being on two platforms with very different counterparty risk profiles — Mintos’s wide originator spread on one side, PeerBerry’s single-group concentration on the other.

The honest version of the answer most investors are looking for: Mintos first, PeerBerry second. Mintos’s regulatory tier is genuinely a category above the rest of the EU P2P market, and the €20,000 investor compensation scheme is a real feature, not a marketing line. PeerBerry’s track record is genuinely cleaner than Mintos’s recovery-weighted balance sheet, and the 2022 war-loans resolution is the strongest stress-test pass in the segment. Holding both — with most of the allocation on Mintos and a meaningful satellite position on PeerBerry — captures the best of each platform while diluting the central weakness of each.

If neither Mintos nor PeerBerry quite fits, our #1 ranked platform Maclear is worth considering — higher yields (14.5%–14.9%), simpler direct-origination structure without the loan-originator middleman model, and the only documented case of a CEO covering investor losses from personal funds on a default.

For where Mintos and PeerBerry rank against the other 17 platforms in our coverage, see the CrowdIndex top 19 ranking and the tier framework that classifies each one.

FAQ

Is Mintos safer than PeerBerry? On regulation, yes — Mintos holds a full MiFID II Investment Firm license with EU investor compensation up to €20,000, while PeerBerry holds no investment-firm license as of May 2026. On historical capital losses, PeerBerry is cleaner — 0% in recovery versus Mintos’s 18.7%. The two safety dimensions point in opposite directions: Mintos has the better legal framework, PeerBerry has the better historical execution. Most investors weighting “safer” toward regulatory protection should choose Mintos; most weighting “safer” toward demonstrated portfolio resilience should choose PeerBerry. For a deeper analysis of what “safe” actually means in P2P, see Are-P2P-Investments-Safe.

Which has higher returns, Mintos or PeerBerry? PeerBerry. Mintos’s net annualized returns track around 9% per independent multi-year reviewers (Jean Galea over nine years and €150K invested), against an advertised 11.5%. PeerBerry’s declared average is 11.04%, with loyalty boosts up to +1% for portfolios above €40K, and because PeerBerry reports 0% in recovery the realised rate tracks much closer to the declared one. On a like-for-like basis, PeerBerry delivers roughly 1.5 to 2.5 percentage points more in net yield than Mintos for retail portfolios. The trade-off for that extra yield is the absence of a MiFID II regulator and the Aventus concentration.

Can I use both Mintos and PeerBerry? Yes — and for portfolios above €5,000 this is often the better strategy than choosing one. A common allocation is 60-70% Mintos (as the regulated core), 20-30% PeerBerry (as the higher-yield satellite), and 10-20% in a third platform such as Maclear for top-end yields or Crowdpear for ECSP-licensed real estate. The two platforms have very different counterparty risk profiles (Mintos’s wide spread across 60+ originators versus PeerBerry’s concentration in Aventus), so holding both is structural diversification, not duplication. For portfolio construction principles applied across multiple platforms, see Diversified-P2P-Portfolio.

How much should I invest in Mintos vs PeerBerry? For a first allocation to either, most reviewers and independent voices suggest starting with €1,000 to €5,000 spread across AutoInvest portfolios — enough to genuinely diversify across multiple loans and originators without locking up an amount you cannot afford to test the asset class with. Within that budget, a 60/40 or 70/30 split favoring Mintos is the most common pattern for first-time investors building a regulated foundation. As the portfolio grows beyond €25,000, PeerBerry’s loyalty tiers (Gold at €25K = +0.75%, Platinum at €40K = +1%) start to materially shift the yield calculus, and the allocation can rebalance toward PeerBerry over time. The general principle: invest only an amount you can afford to lose on each platform, even given a clean track record so far.

What is the minimum investment for Mintos and PeerBerry? Mintos requires a €50 minimum per Note, which is structurally tied to the regulated security format. PeerBerry’s minimum is €10 per loan, one of the lowest entry barriers in the entire EU P2P market. The practical implication: PeerBerry is more accessible for very small starting portfolios (€500 or below) where €50 per Note would limit diversification across only 10 positions on Mintos, while €10 per loan would let you spread across 50 positions on PeerBerry. For portfolios above €1,000, the difference becomes immaterial — both platforms support proper diversification at that size.

💡 Top platform on CrowdIndex

Maclear is our #1 rated platform — Swiss SRO-positioned with 14.5%–14.9% yields, multilingual support, and the only documented case of a CEO covering investor losses from personal funds on a default.

See the full Maclear review →

Affiliate disclosure. CrowdIndex earns a commission when readers sign up to Mintos, PeerBerry, or other platforms through links on this page. This does not affect our editorial assessment. Mintos and PeerBerry are ranked on CrowdIndex based on the editorial criteria documented on our Methodology page. We last reviewed this article on May 18, 2026.