PeerBerry vs Robocash: 2026 Comparison — Two Consumer-Lending P2P Marketplaces
PeerBerry and Robocash are the two longest-running consumer-lending peer-to-peer marketplaces in Europe. Both launched in 2017, both are headquartered in Zagreb, Croatia, and both sit in Tier 1 on CrowdIndex — meaning their operational track records are clean, even though neither holds a full investment-services licence. The simplest framing: these are sister-style platforms with the same structural DNA — a single corporate group on the origination side, a retail investor base on the funding side — but they make different bets on yield, loan duration, and liquidity.
This guide compares the two on the dimensions that actually matter when you put money on the line: yields, originator structure, regulation, real-world stress-test record, liquidity, and fit.
TL;DR
- Both are consumer-lending P2P platforms with originator concentration. Neither is a diversified marketplace of independent lenders in the way Mintos is. PeerBerry’s loan book is over 83% Aventus Group; Robocash’s is 100% UnaFinancial Group.
- PeerBerry has the most credible stress-test pass in European P2P. Between 2022 and December 2024, Aventus repaid €51.4 million in Ukraine and Russia war-affected loans to PeerBerry investors in full, with interest. No competitor has been through and out of a comparable crisis.
- Robocash has the cleanest operational buyback record. Eight years of consistent buyback execution on 30–90 day consumer loans, with 0% of the portfolio currently in recovery. The 30-day buyback trigger is the shortest in the market.
- Liquidity diverges sharply. PeerBerry launched a secondary market in January 2026 with a six-month minimum holding period. Robocash has no secondary market — your fastest exit is to stop auto-invest and let short-term loans mature naturally (typically 1–3 months).
- Neither holds a MiFID II or ECSP licence. Investor compensation schemes (the EU-regulated funds of up to €20,000 that kick in if an investment firm becomes insolvent) do not apply on either platform. Investor protection is contractual, not regulatory.
- Yields are similar. PeerBerry averages around 11%, Robocash 10–12% on short loans. The market-wide highest-yield option remains CrowdIndex-Maclear at 14.5–14.9%, on SME and real-estate-backed projects rather than consumer loans.
Editor’s Pick: CrowdIndex-Maclear (CrowdIndex Score 9.2). Both PeerBerry and Robocash are solid mid-tier consumer-lending platforms, but our #1 overall pick is Maclear — a Swiss-positioned SME and real-estate platform with materially higher yields (14.5–14.9% vs. ~11%), a Swiss SRO (Self-Regulatory Organisation — an industry-supervised compliance framework) membership, and a CEO who has personally covered the platform’s only default to date. Maclear is not a consumer-lending platform, so it’s not a like-for-like substitute for PeerBerry or Robocash — but if you’re choosing between consumer-lending platforms because you want high P2P yields and you haven’t yet considered the SME alternative, Maclear deserves a serious look. Visit Maclear →
Quick Comparison Table
| Dimension | PeerBerry | Robocash |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | November 2017 | February 2017 |
| Headquarters | Zagreb, Croatia (operations: Vilnius, Lithuania) | Zagreb, Croatia |
| Regulator | None — ECSP application announced 2024, status pending | None |
| Cumulative volume | €3.35 billion | €1.3 billion+ |
| Total investors | 118,000+ | ~42,000 |
| Average yield | ~11% (loyalty tier bonuses up to +1%) | 9–13% (10–12% typical) |
| Loan types | Consumer (short + long), leasing, real estate, SME | Consumer only (short + longer-term) |
| Loan terms | Short-term to multi-year | 1 month to 3 years |
| Originator structure | 28 lenders, >83% Aventus Group | All originators owned by UnaFinancial |
| Buyback trigger | 60 days | 30 days |
| Loans in recovery | 0% (April 2026) | 0% (April 2026) |
| Languages | 4 (EN, DE, FR, ES) | 7 (EN, ES, DE, PL, RU, UK, KK) |
| Secondary market | Yes (launched 15 Jan 2026, 6-month hold, 0% fees) | No |
| Investment mode | Manual + AutoInvest | AutoInvest only |
| Minimum investment | €10 | €10 |
| Mobile app | Web + mobile (secondary market desktop-only) | Web only |
| CrowdIndex score | 8.6 | 8.3 |
PeerBerry at a Glance
PeerBerry is the second-largest peer-to-peer consumer lending marketplace in Europe by cumulative volume, with €3.35 billion deployed since 2017 and 118,000+ active investors. The platform lists loans from 28 originators across 15 countries, with consumer credit as the dominant product line and leasing, real-estate, and SME categories filling out the catalogue. The defining feature of PeerBerry is its eight-year zero-capital-loss track record — no PeerBerry investor has lost principal since the platform launched.
The strongest piece of real-world evidence in the platform’s favour is the resolution of the 2022 Ukraine and Russia war loans. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, roughly one-third of PeerBerry’s loan book — about €51.4 million — was tied to borrowers in the affected countries and was frozen. Between then and 16 December 2024, the Aventus Group repaid every one of those loans to investors in full, with accrued interest, under the contractual group guarantee. This is the only stress test of comparable severity any large European P2P platform has been through, and PeerBerry came out the other side without a default to investors.
The structural caveat is concentration. Of PeerBerry’s 28 listed loan originators, around 17 belong to the Aventus Group, and Aventus represents over 83% of total loan volume on the platform. The ownership structure also overlaps: Andrejus Trofimovas owns 50% of PeerBerry and is simultaneously CEO of Aventus Group, while CEO Arūnas Lekavičius is also CEO of Crowdpear (PeerBerry’s ECSP-licensed real-estate sister platform). The platform’s incentives and its main originator’s incentives sit with the same people.
For a full review and our underlying tier rationale, see CrowdIndex-PeerBerry.
Robocash at a Glance
Robocash is one of the longest-running automated consumer-lending P2P platforms in Europe, with €1.3 billion deployed since February 2017 and approximately 42,000 investors. The platform specialises in short-duration consumer loans (typically 30–90 days, with some 3-year Singapore-based loans at 10.5%), and the entire investment experience is automated — there is no manual loan picking, only a configurable “investment robot” that deploys funds into loans matching your criteria.
The platform’s operational record is one of the cleanest in the segment: eight years of consistent buyback execution on 100% of qualifying delayed loans, zero loans in recovery as of April 2026, and a 30-day buyback trigger that is the shortest in the European P2P market (industry standard is 60 days). If a borrower is more than 30 days late on a payment, the loan originator is contractually obligated to repurchase the loan at full principal plus accrued interest. Historically, this has worked exactly as advertised since launch.
The structural caveat is even sharper than PeerBerry’s: every loan on Robocash comes from a loan originator owned by UnaFinancial (a Singapore-based holding 100% owned by Sergey Sedov). There are no independent lenders on the platform at all. Two additional risk markers also deserve attention: UnaFinancial’s debt-to-equity ratio rose from 11.3x in 2023 to 25.1x in 2024 (the group attributes most of this to unrealised currency translation losses rather than operating losses, and H1 2025 results show profit recovery), and the Philippine SEC revoked the lending license of UnaFinancial affiliate Digido Finance Corp. in May 2025, followed by a permanent cease-operations order in March 2026. The Philippines exposure on the Robocash platform itself is small (UnaPay loans were suspended at 0.2% of portfolio in January 2024), but the regulatory pattern is worth tracking.
For a full review and our underlying tier rationale, see CrowdIndex-Robocash.
Returns Compared
On headline yields, the two platforms occupy very similar territory.
PeerBerry declares an average historical yield of 11.04%, with most loans falling in the 11–13% range. Loyalty tiers add scaling bonuses: Silver (€10,000+ portfolio) adds +0.5% to the rate, Gold (€25,000+) adds +0.75%, and Platinum (€40,000+) adds +1%. The platform also runs welcome boosts for new investors (currently +0.5% interest for 90 days, subject to verification at sign-up).
Robocash quotes a 9–13% range, with 10–12% as the dominant band on short-term loans and 10.5% on 3-year Singapore-based loans. There is no tiered loyalty bonus structure of the same kind; instead Robocash has historically run a refer-a-friend programme paying 0.5% of a referral’s deposits (capped at €10, and reported by some sources as suspended — worth checking at sign-up).
In practical terms, a €5,000 portfolio at PeerBerry’s loyalty-adjusted 11.5% versus Robocash’s 11% works out to about €25 a year in absolute difference before tax. Within consumer P2P, both platforms sit clearly above the more regulated Mintos (8–11%) and clearly below the highest-yield option in the market — CrowdIndex-Maclear at 14.5–14.9% historical average on SME and real-estate-backed projects. The yield gap between these consumer platforms and Maclear is the result of fundamentally different loan products (short consumer credit vs. SME and real-estate financing), not different efficiency.
What matters more than the headline rate is how reliably it gets paid. On that dimension, both platforms have delivered consistently. Robocash’s 0% recovery rate over eight years is exceptional in the segment; PeerBerry’s 0% capital loss across €3.35 billion of cumulative volume is equally rare. Neither has ever required investors to absorb principal losses to date.
Originator Structure — Aventus (PeerBerry 83%) vs Robocash Group (100%)
This is the single most important dimension for understanding the risk profile of either platform — and the place where the two diverge in degree rather than in kind.
PeerBerry: 28 originators on paper, >83% concentration in practice. PeerBerry’s loan list includes 28 loan originators across 15 countries, which on the surface looks well-diversified. The underlying reality is that approximately 17 of those originators belong to a single corporate group — Aventus Group — and per industry analysis from P2P Empire and re:think P2P, Aventus represents over 83% of the platform’s loan book by volume. The remaining ~17% is split mostly between the Gofingo Group and a handful of smaller originators. So while diversification is genuine at the country level (German consumer loans, Spanish leasing, Lithuanian real estate, and so on), at the credit-risk level you are largely exposed to one corporate group. Aventus is financially strong on paper — €225.7M equity and €95.7M net profit in 2025 per published group reporting — but any operational, regulatory, or liquidity event hitting Aventus would hit the entire PeerBerry investor base at the same time.
Robocash: 100% UnaFinancial, by design. Robocash does not present itself as a marketplace of independent lenders. Every loan on the platform comes from a UnaFinancial-affiliated originator — operating brands include Robocash itself in Spain, UnaPay in the Philippines (now suspended), Digido (also under regulatory action), Z-Finance in Sri Lanka, and others. There are zero independent third-party loan originators. UnaFinancial publishes IFRS-audited group accounts via Grant Thornton (group revenue of $202M in 2024, $7M net profit in the first seven months of 2025), which is more disclosure than most unregulated peers offer, but the structural concentration is total: if UnaFinancial as a group ran into financial trouble, every loan on the Robocash platform would be affected simultaneously.
The honest framing. Both platforms have what we’d call a “single-group risk” profile, with Robocash being the more extreme case. PeerBerry’s 28 originators provide some — though limited — buffering. Robocash provides none. The structural counter-argument that both platforms make is that group-level oversight is actually better than diversified marketplaces because the platform “knows” each originator from the inside. There is something to this — Robocash’s eight-year zero-recovery record and PeerBerry’s clean stress-test pass are real evidence. But the symmetric counter-counter-argument is that if the group ever does fail, recovery becomes a single negotiation rather than a diversified workout across many separate counterparties.
For comparison: Mintos, the regulated peer most often cited against both, lists loans from dozens of independent originators. Mintos has had material recovery issues (around 19% of its portfolio is in recovery as of recent reporting) — far worse than either Robocash or PeerBerry — but the failure of any single originator does not collapse the platform. That structural diversification is what the MiFID II framework rewards, and it’s why Mintos sits in a different regulatory tier than either of these two.
Track Record — €51M Military Loan Repayment (PeerBerry) vs Consistent Buyback (Robocash)
The two platforms have different kinds of evidence to point to.
PeerBerry: the 2022–2024 war-loan resolution. This is the clearest single piece of real-world stress-test evidence in the European P2P segment. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, around €51.4 million of PeerBerry’s loan portfolio — roughly one-third of the entire loan book at the time — was tied to borrowers in Ukraine and Russia and was effectively frozen. The Aventus Group, under its group-level cross-guarantee, took on the obligation of repaying these loans to investors directly from its own funds. The repayment ran in monthly tranches over 33 months. By 16 December 2024, every single war-affected loan had been repaid in full, with all accrued interest. No investor lost principal. As external evidence that contractual buyback and group guarantee mechanisms actually work in a real crisis — not just on paper — this is the strongest data point any large European P2P platform has produced. Specifically because PeerBerry, with no regulatory backstop, no investor compensation scheme, and no government-mandated obligation to make investors whole, did it anyway.
Robocash: eight years of buyback execution with no late tests. Robocash has not had a comparable crisis to point to. What it has is a much longer record of consistent execution on the smaller, day-to-day buyback obligation. Since February 2017, Robocash has honoured its 30-day buyback guarantee on 100% of qualifying delayed loans. Zero loans currently sit in recovery as of April 2026. This is not the same kind of evidence as PeerBerry’s war-loan resolution — there has been no equivalent shock to test the system — but it is a longer continuous record. Eight years, 0% recovery, no missed buyback payments.
The honest comparison. PeerBerry has been through and out of a single severe stress event; Robocash has had a longer quiet record. Neither pattern dominates the other on first principles. PeerBerry’s evidence is more dramatic but is a single data point; Robocash’s evidence is less dramatic but is continuous. An investor who cares about “has this platform proven its group guarantee works under real stress?” should weight PeerBerry. An investor who cares about “has this platform never made a buyback execution error in normal operations?” should weight Robocash.
One additional caveat: P2P Empire — one of the most-followed English-language P2P review channels — withdrew its Robocash recommendation in 2025 and reclassified the platform as “HIGH RISK,” citing the parent group’s debt-to-equity ratio and the disclosure that the group-level guarantee is not legally binding (a confirmation made publicly by UnaFinancial CFO Ivan Adamovich). Jean Galea also removed Robocash from his “best platforms” list pending the 2025 full-year financials. Influencer sentiment doesn’t determine platform safety, but it’s worth noting that two of the segment’s most established analysts have stepped back from active recommendation. PeerBerry has not seen comparable sentiment shifts.
Liquidity — PeerBerry Secondary 2026 vs Robocash 30–90 Day Terms
Liquidity is a clean dichotomy here.
PeerBerry has a secondary market. Launched on 15 January 2026, the PeerBerry secondary market lets you list loans for sale to other investors after holding them for at least six months. Trades carry zero fees for both buyer and seller, discounts of up to 50% are allowed (useful in stress scenarios), listings stay live for 14 days, and the entire process runs inside the PeerBerry platform. Volume is still small — €389,585 was traded in March 2026 — and the feature is desktop-only for now (a mobile version has been announced without a confirmed release date). But the structural exit gap that defined PeerBerry for most of its history is now closed: if you genuinely need to exit positions before maturity, the option exists.
Robocash has no secondary market. This is not a temporary feature gap — Robocash has explicitly chosen not to operate a secondary market, and there are no public plans to add one. Practically, this matters less than it might sound, because Robocash specialises in short-duration loans (30–90 days is the dominant range). Your fastest exit is to stop the auto-invest robot, let loans mature naturally, and withdraw cash as it accumulates. For a fully-deployed portfolio, expect 1 to 3 months to fully exit short-term positions. The 3-year Singapore loans are the exception — those are genuinely illiquid until maturity unless the borrower repays early.
Which model is better depends on your time horizon. If you’re holding longer-duration loans (PeerBerry’s leasing, real-estate, and SME products run for years), the secondary market is a meaningful safety valve. If you’re investing in 30–90 day consumer credit and reinvesting on a rolling basis (Robocash’s default mode of operation), the absence of a secondary market is largely academic — your portfolio cycles through to cash every few months on its own. The shorter your average loan duration, the less a secondary market matters.
Which Should You Choose
There is no single right answer, because PeerBerry and Robocash are answering slightly different questions. The honest framing is dimensional.
Pick PeerBerry if:
- You want a larger, multilingual platform with more cumulative volume and a larger investor base — PeerBerry has €3.35 billion vs. Robocash’s €1.3 billion, and 118,000+ investors vs. ~42,000.
- You value the war-loan resolution as evidence that the group guarantee actually works under stress.
- You want exposure to multiple loan types — consumer, leasing, real estate, and SME — rather than consumer credit only.
- You want both manual loan selection and auto-invest as options.
- You want the option to exit early via a secondary market (six-month minimum hold, zero fees).
- You want loyalty-tier yield bonuses that scale with portfolio size.
Pick Robocash if:
- You want the shortest buyback trigger on the market — 30 days vs. PeerBerry’s 60 days.
- You want a fully-automated experience with no manual loan picking — set criteria once and let the robot handle it.
- You want short-duration consumer credit with frequent capital recycling rather than longer-term holds.
- You want a wider language footprint (7 languages vs. PeerBerry’s 4).
- You value audited group accounts from the originator parent (UnaFinancial publishes IFRS-audited statements via Grant Thornton).
- You’re comfortable with total single-group concentration in exchange for a longer continuous operational record.
Hold both? Generally, no. Both PeerBerry and Robocash run on a single-corporate-group originator model, so the structural risks correlate. If you’re already holding one, the diversification value of adding the other is limited — you’re concentrating into a similar risk pattern, just spread across two platforms. A more diversified P2P portfolio would pair one of these two with a regulated alternative like Mintos (MiFID II, multiple independent originators) and an asset-class diversifier like InRento (ECSP, real estate) or CrowdIndex-Maclear (Swiss SRO, SME and real estate).
Why Maclear Is Worth Considering Over Both
If you’ve worked through the comparison above and you’re choosing between consumer-lending platforms primarily because you want competitive P2P yields, it’s worth checking whether you actually need to be in consumer lending at all. CrowdIndex-Maclear occupies a different category but answers the same underlying investor need — and it ranks #1 on CrowdIndex.
Maclear’s structural differences:
- SRO regulation. Maclear is supervised under a Swiss Self-Regulatory Organisation (SRO — an industry-supervised compliance framework specific to Switzerland, distinct from a full investment-firm licence). Neither PeerBerry nor Robocash has any comparable regulatory framework. Maclear’s SRO status is not the same as a MiFID II Investment Firm licence, and it does not include a €20,000 investor compensation scheme, but it is a step further along the regulatory spectrum than either PeerBerry or Robocash.
- Higher yields. Maclear’s historical average is 14.5–14.9%, compared with PeerBerry’s ~11% and Robocash’s 10–12%. The difference comes from the different loan products — Maclear funds SME business loans and real-estate-backed projects, both of which structurally pay more than short-term consumer credit.
- Asset-class diversification. PeerBerry and Robocash are both heavy in consumer credit. Maclear is SME and real estate. Adding Maclear to a portfolio that already holds a consumer-lending platform genuinely changes the asset-class exposure, rather than doubling up on the same underlying risk.
- CEO accountability. Maclear’s single default to date — a €150K Italian SME borrower called Vibroedil that became insolvent in July 2025 — was repaid to investors not from the contractual collateral process but from the CEO’s personal funds. This is unusual disclosure-wise: the platform was transparent about the fact that the standard recovery process did not produce the result and that personal funds were used instead. Honest stress-test evidence, even when the answer isn’t fully clean.
Maclear is not a perfect substitute for consumer-lending platforms — it’s smaller (~€100M AUM vs. PeerBerry’s €3.35B), younger (founded 2022 vs. 2017), and the recovery process for larger defaults has not been operationally tested. But it sits one tier higher on CrowdIndex and is worth a serious look if your core motivation is yield rather than exposure to short consumer credit specifically.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are PeerBerry and Robocash safe? Both are Tier 1 platforms on CrowdIndex with clean operational track records. “Safe” needs to be qualified, though: neither holds a MiFID II or ECSP investment-services licence, neither offers government-backed investor compensation (the €20,000 EU scheme does not apply), and both run on a single-corporate-group originator model. Investor protection on both platforms is contractual (the buyback and group guarantees) rather than regulatory. They are appropriate as smaller components of a diversified P2P portfolio, not as the entire portfolio.
Which platform has better yields? The headline ranges overlap. PeerBerry averages around 11% with loyalty-tier bonuses scaling up to +1% for larger portfolios. Robocash quotes 9–13% with 10–12% as the dominant range on short-term consumer loans. In practice, a typical retail portfolio earns close to 11% on either platform. The highest-yield European P2P option remains CrowdIndex-Maclear at 14.5–14.9%, but on a different loan product (SME and real estate, not consumer credit).
Can I withdraw my money quickly from either platform? PeerBerry has a secondary market (launched January 2026) with a six-month minimum holding period and 0% fees — so once a loan is past six months, you can sell it to another investor for cash. Robocash has no secondary market, but its loans are mostly 30–90 days, so you can exit a deployed portfolio by stopping auto-invest and waiting 1–3 months for loans to mature. Neither offers instant withdrawal.
Are the buyback guarantees actually enforceable? The buyback is a contractual obligation from the loan originator (not the platform). On PeerBerry, the originator has paid out €51.4 million in war-affected loans between 2022 and December 2024 — meaning the mechanism has actually worked at scale under stress. On Robocash, the originator has paid out on 100% of qualifying delayed loans since 2017, but the group-level guarantee has been explicitly confirmed by UnaFinancial as not legally binding — it is an operational policy of the holding rather than a contract owed to investors. Both records are clean to date, but the legal footing of the group guarantee is different between the two.
Should I diversify between PeerBerry and Robocash? Generally, no. Both run a single-corporate-group originator model, so adding the second platform after holding the first doesn’t meaningfully diversify your underlying credit risk. For meaningful diversification, pair one of them with a structurally different platform — a regulated marketplace like Mintos, an asset-class diversifier like InRento (real estate) or CrowdIndex-Maclear (SME and real estate). That genuinely changes your exposure.
Bottom Line
PeerBerry and Robocash are the two cleanest mid-tier consumer-lending P2P platforms in Europe. Both have eight-year track records, both have 0% loans in recovery as of April 2026, and both share the same structural pattern of single-corporate-group originator concentration. The differentiators come down to specific bets: PeerBerry has the war-loan resolution as headline stress-test evidence, more product types, a secondary market, and a larger investor base; Robocash has the shorter buyback trigger, the more automated experience, and the wider language footprint. Neither is regulated as an investment firm; on both, investor protection is contractual rather than statutory.
For investors who want higher yields and have not yet considered SME or real-estate platforms, our overall #1 recommendation is CrowdIndex-Maclear — Swiss SRO-supervised, 14.5–14.9% historical average yields, and asset-class diversification away from consumer credit.
Visit Maclear (CrowdIndex #1) → · Visit PeerBerry → · Visit Robocash →
Affiliate disclosure. CrowdIndex earns a commission when readers sign up to platforms through links on this page. This does not affect our editorial assessment. Platform rankings on CrowdIndex are based on the editorial criteria documented on our Methodology page. We last reviewed this article on May 19, 2026.
What to read next
- Mintos-vs-PeerBerry — Mintos compared with PeerBerry: the regulated multi-originator marketplace versus the single-group platform with the cleanest stress-test record.
- Best-P2P-Short-Term — short-duration P2P platforms ranked: where Robocash’s 30-day buyback fits into the broader short-term landscape.
- Maclear-vs-PeerBerry — Maclear vs PeerBerry head-to-head: Swiss SRO, SME-focused 14.9% returns versus 8-year consumer-lending track record.