Best performing P2P lending platforms in September 2026 (and what the risks really look like)

P2P lending still looks shiny from the outside: double-digit interest rates, hands-off products, and lots of talk about "liquidity" and "safety." But when you zoom out and look at the data across platforms, the picture gets a lot more sobering.

In this article, I’ll walk you through which European P2P platforms are currently performing best, where I see growing risks, and how to think about these investments in the context of your overall money plan. My goal isn’t to scare you away, but to help you see the real trade-offs before you lock up your cash.

What the overall P2P picture looks like right now

Across the platforms that share data, there’s about €2.6 billion in outstanding loans. Out of that, around €685 million is in “recovery” — loans that are seriously late or defaulted. That’s roughly 26%.

In plain language, if you had been broadly diversified across a wide range of platforms over time, about a quarter of your money would now be stuck in recovery. You’re usually not earning interest on that chunk, and a significant part of it may never come back at all.

Most platforms advertise around 10% annual returns. But if you have to write off 26% of your capital over time, your actual long-term return can drop dramatically. This is why P2P lending is not a “set it and forget it” product. It’s a risky, active investment that requires monitoring and a clear risk budget inside your overall portfolio.

Platforms with no funds in recovery (the current standouts)

Let’s start with the platforms that currently report no funds in recovery. That doesn’t mean they’re risk-free, but it does mean that, so far, loans are performing as expected.

PeerBerry

PeerBerry is currently at the front of the pack. It manages around €148 million of investor money, up about 2.7% from the previous month, and reports zero funds in recovery.

That means investors aren’t currently dealing with pending payments or defaulted loans on the platform. PeerBerry also recently added a new lender from South Africa, which slightly broadens diversification by geography.

Things I like here:

– No funds in recovery at the moment
– Growing portfolio (a sign that investors still trust the platform)
– More geographic diversification

Things to keep in mind:

– You’re still exposed to underlying lenders, not PeerBerry itself
– P2P lending is inherently risky, even when current numbers look good

InRento

InRento focuses on rental real estate investments. Its outstanding portfolio is close to €91 million, up around 7% month-over-month, and it reports a 0% default rate.

The platform emphasizes risk management, and recent conversations with management suggest they’re focused on underwriting quality and conservative structures. Still, rental projects are not immune to vacancies, economic slowdowns, or property-related issues.

What stands out:

– No defaults reported so far
– Steady portfolio growth
– Real-estate-backed, which behaves differently from short-term consumer loans

Robocash

Robocash’s outstanding portfolio is similar to last month and currently shows no loans in recovery. On the surface, that looks solid. But the way the platform is structured matters a lot here.

On Robocash, you’re effectively funding a business loan to the Una Financial Group based in Singapore. The group then uses those funds at its own discretion. So your risk is heavily concentrated in that one corporate borrower.

Key concerns:

– The 2025 financial reports for Una Financial still haven’t been published
– You’re taking on business risk of a single group, not a diversified basket of unrelated loans
– Lack of fresh financial data makes it harder to assess solvency

Robocash also launched a new product called Robo Flow. It offers:

– 6% annual yield
– Exposure to the same Singaporean entity
– No formal lockup period, but your exit depends on another investor stepping in

In practice, Robo Flow works similarly to their existing auto-invest/secondary market arrangement, where you can earn up to 9%. So you’re taking on similar risk, with similar liquidity mechanics, but for a lower advertised return. Personally, I’d want a very clear reason to accept lower yield for the same underlying credit risk.

Esketit

Esketit has an outstanding portfolio of around €47 million, with no funds in recovery. The portfolio actually shrank by about 6% compared to August, which might reflect more cautious investor behavior or slower loan supply.

Recently, Esketit made several important changes:

– The counterparty has changed to ESKETIT Croatia instead of Esketit Ireland
– Ireland is now on the prohibited country list (Irish residents can’t invest)
– The payment waterfall changed: platform fees, commissions, and unpaid service fees are paid before investors in case of problems
– Auto-purchase terms now include pre-consent for future changes, meaning the platform can add new loan originators to your auto-invest without fresh approval
– A 2% processing fee was added for card payments

Why this matters for you:

– In a lender default, Esketit’s fees get paid before you, which increases your downside risk
– Auto-invest may expose you to new lenders you haven’t reviewed
– Card deposits are now more expensive

None of this automatically makes Esketit “bad,” but it does tilt the risk/return balance more in favor of the platform and less in favor of the investor.

Afranga

Afranga reports a loan portfolio of about €40 million, but the data is from the end of July, which is not ideal. Outdated statistics are a red flag for me, because timely, transparent data is one of the few tools you have as an investor.

Recent developments:

– They launched a secondary market where investors can buy and sell existing investments
– Discounts and premiums are capped at ±15%
– Currently, there is no secondary market fee, which makes it relatively attractive compared with some competitors
– Afranga is offering up to a 2% cashback bonus on its “SaveSmart” investments: commit for 1 year and your 10% yield bumps to 12%

However, with SaveSmart you’re essentially exposed to the underlying lender (Stikcredit), which can use your funds at its own discretion. If Stikcredit runs into trouble, your “high-yield” savings product is just as vulnerable as any other unsecured lending exposure.

Other smaller platforms with no reported funds in recovery

A few smaller or newer platforms are also reporting no funds in recovery:

– Triple Dragon: continues to grow more than 7% month-over-month and has already had several early loan repayments. It still offers some of the highest yields in the industry, especially when combined with a 2% cashback bonus. High yield almost always means higher risk, so this is not a place for money you can’t afford to lose.
– Modena: a small, unregulated platform offering exposure to its own Estonian loan originator.
– Revest: a Croatian marketplace with business and short-term loans in Kazakhstan.
– Loanvest: offers various loans from Malaysia and Singapore.
– Digilo: a newer platform focusing on SME loans from the Baltics.

With these smaller, often unregulated platforms, the main risk is that you have less track record, less transparency, and often more concentrated exposure. If you invest, treat it as a speculative slice of your portfolio, not your core savings.

Platforms showing early warning signs

Now let’s look at platforms where I see rising risk, weaker transparency, or operational issues that you should factor into your decisions.

Fintown

Fintown’s outstanding portfolio is roughly unchanged from August, but the bigger story is around reporting and liquidity.

Issues to note:

– Very limited information about operations for the first half of 2026
– Financial reports for both the Vihorev Group and Fintown for 2025 were promised for August but still haven’t been released
– Investors are reporting delays in withdrawing available funds, with some waiting up to 8 business days

Management attributes the withdrawal delays to temporary timing gaps in fund settlements and expects proceeds from a property (Honest Smíchov) sale to normalize processing.

Here’s the key takeaway: if a platform uses a “liquidity buffer” or similar mechanism but doesn’t publicly disclose how big that buffer is or where the money sits, you shouldn’t assume that your “available balance” is truly liquid on demand. Unless funds are clearly segregated in dedicated client accounts, your withdrawal is always dependent on the platform’s overall cash situation.

EstateGuru

EstateGuru’s funds in recovery have increased slightly compared with August, and there’s another important development: the secondary market is currently disabled.

According to the platform, this is a temporary disruption related to a change in payment processor. However, it has already been about a month and the secondary market is still closed.

Why this matters:

– EstateGuru already has a poorly performing portfolio with a high share of loans in recovery
– Without a secondary market, your ability to exit positions is limited even further
– For investors who relied on the secondary market for some liquidity, this is a big negative

When a platform with weaker loan performance also takes away liquidity, it understandably erodes investor trust.

Ventus Energy

Ventus Energy has entered court-supervised reorganization. At this point, it’s unclear how much of investors’ funds will be recovered.

This is a reminder that even when a project looks promising on paper, business borrowers can and do run into serious trouble. Recovery processes can take years, and there’s no guarantee of full repayment.

Nectaro

Nectaro is a regulated platform, but regulation doesn’t magically remove operational risk.

Recent issues:

– Pending payment amounts are not currently shown in their public statistics, despite requests from investors
– Some investors reported that finished loans did not show full principal repayment initially
– Nectaro confirmed a repayment discrepancy affecting about 24 loans, caused by a specific combination of loan parameters and repayment distribution

The platform says the issue is now resolved and that they’ve started an ongoing repayment audit to catch similar problems.

What this tells us:

– Even regulated platforms can have technical and operational bugs
– Transparency (like showing pending payments) is critical for investor trust
– You should never treat “regulated” as “safe” in the absolute sense

Twino

Twino hasn’t updated its statistics recently, which already makes it harder to judge performance. The platform added a feature that lets you automatically move repayments from manual or auto-invest portfolios into their Flexi product.

But there are key concentration risks:

– You’re essentially exposed to one main lender from Poland
– The Polish regulatory environment is evolving, which can affect the lender’s operations
– The Vietnamese portfolio remains defaulted

Automatically rolling repayments into another product without reassessing risk can quietly increase your exposure to a single lender or country. It might be convenient, but convenience isn’t free — you pay with concentration risk.

Income, Debitum, Indemo, LANDE, and others

A few more quick notes:

– Income: reports portfolio growth of about 3%, with around 2.2% of funds in a “buyback initiated” category. This means some loans are under buyback, and you’re waiting on the lender to fulfill its obligations.
– Debitum: similar portfolio growth and a new “Debitum Flow” product with a 5-year lockup, 8% interest, and a weekly withdrawal limit of €5,000. There’s no early exit fee, but you’re taking the same credit risk you’d have with manual or auto-invest — often for lower yield than you could get by picking higher-rate loans directly.
– Indemo: reports around 4.5% portfolio growth and additional debt repayments, with returns averaging roughly 18% per year on some positions. High returns usually reflect higher risk and more complex recovery work.
– LANDE: funds in recovery are roughly unchanged. The platform expects better cash flow from borrowers as the harvest season progresses, which may improve recoveries later in the year.

For several platforms, there simply isn’t enough reliable, up-to-date data. If a platform doesn’t share clear performance numbers, I treat their marketing claims with a lot of skepticism.

The rise of “flow” and “liquidity” products

One big trend this year is the explosion of so-called “flow” or “liquidity” products. Different platforms brand them differently, but they tend to share a few features:

– You deposit money into a pooled product
– The platform allocates it across loans or lenders on your behalf
– You get a simple, headline interest rate (often lower than the top rates available on manual loans)
– You’re promised high liquidity or an easy exit

From the platform’s perspective, these products are great:

– They increase funding volume
– They reduce cash drag for lenders
– They simplify marketing (“earn X% with daily liquidity!”)

From your perspective, the story is more complicated.

The real risk behind flow products

Under the hood, the credit risk of most flow products is very similar to regular loans on the platform. You’re still relying on the same underlying lenders and borrowers to repay.

The downsides:

– You may be overexposed to specific lenders with weak financials or limited disclosure
– You often earn a lower interest rate than you could get with manual selection, despite taking the same credit risk
– Liquidity is often conditional: you can exit only if new investors are coming in or if there’s enough cash in the pool

Many investors hear “liquidity” and think “safe.” That’s a dangerous assumption. If the underlying lender fails, your “liquid” product can quickly become illiquid — and possibly end in default.

Why communication and transparency matter so much

Across platforms, I’m seeing recurring issues around communication:

– Incomplete or outdated statistics
– No clear display of pending payments
– Operational errors not clearly explained
– Important updates shared only in Telegram groups or chats, not via email or official announcements

If a platform is comfortable making big marketing claims but slow to admit mistakes or share hard numbers, that’s a red flag. As an investor, you need:

– Timely, accurate data on portfolio performance
– Clear explanations when something goes wrong
– Official communication channels (email, blog, dashboard), not just chat groups

Information gaps lead to frustration and misunderstandings. They also make it harder to spot early warning signs before things get worse.

How to think about P2P lending in your overall money plan

Given everything above, how should you treat P2P lending in your personal finances?

Here’s how I’d frame it:

– It’s a high-risk asset class. A 26% industry-wide recovery rate is not a rounding error — it’s a structural risk.
– It’s not a substitute for your emergency fund, rent money, or short-term savings. For that, I’d rather use cash, high-yield savings, or very low-risk options.
– It can make sense as a small, speculative slice of a diversified portfolio, if you understand the risks and are actively monitoring your positions.

If you don’t have the time or interest to track platform news, read financial reports, and adjust your allocations, it’s perfectly reasonable to decide that P2P lending just isn’t worth the hassle. There are simpler ways to grow your money over time, like broad stock index funds or dividend stocks. If that’s more your speed, you might prefer something like the approach I talk about in the dividend stocks I’m watching this month or the diversified investing ideas in where to invest in September 2026.

Practical steps before you invest in any P2P platform

If you decide to use P2P lending at all, here are some simple checks I’d do every time:

1. Check funds in recovery. What percentage of the portfolio is in recovery or default? Is that number going up or down over time?
2. Look at who you’re really lending to. Are you exposed to many independent lenders and borrowers, or effectively lending to one group or company behind the scenes?
3. Read the terms for “liquidity” products. Under what conditions can you exit? Is there a lockup? Do you depend on new investors to cash you out?
4. Understand the payment waterfall. In case of trouble, who gets paid first: the platform, the lender, or you?
5. Assess transparency. Are financial reports up to date? Are pending payments visible? Does the platform communicate bad news openly?

And finally, decide in advance how much of your net worth you’re willing to risk in this area. For many people, that number will be small — and that’s okay.

P2P lending can be interesting and sometimes profitable, but it is not a shortcut to safe passive income. Treat it with the same caution you’d use with any other high-risk investment, and don’t be afraid to walk away if the numbers or communication don’t add up.