Afranga and PeerBerry both live in the high-yield consumer-loan corner of European P2P, and both rest heavily on a single lending group. The defining difference is regulation: Afranga is ECSP licensed, PeerBerry is not. That, plus scale and convenience, is what separates them.
The short version: Afranga has the regulatory edge and a slightly higher return, but it’s small, concentrated, has no auto-invest, and withholds Bulgarian tax. PeerBerry is unregulated but far larger, more proven, easier to automate, and rewards loyalty. Afranga is the regulated newcomer; PeerBerry is the established workhorse.
Quick Comparison: Afranga vs PeerBerry
| Feature | Afranga | PeerBerry |
|---|---|---|
| Country | Bulgaria | Latvia |
| Founded | ECSP-licensed (current form) | 2017 |
| Regulation | ECSP licensed | Not regulated (Lithuanian licensing) |
| Avg. Returns | ~13.9% | ~11% (up to 12% with loyalty) |
| Buyback Guarantee | Yes | Yes (60 days) |
| Secondary Market | Limited | No |
| Auto-Invest | No | Yes |
| Total Funded | Smaller, growing | EUR 3.24 billion+ |
| Registered Investors | Growing | 110,000+ |
| Loan Originators | 6 (Stikcredit-heavy) | 12 (Aventus ~80%) |
| Fees | None | None |
| Loyalty Program | Referral bonus | Yes (+0.5% to +1%) |
| Withholding Tax | 10% (Bulgaria) | None at source |
Returns and Net Yield
Afranga’s headline return is higher, around 13.9% against PeerBerry’s ~11% (up to 12% once PeerBerry’s loyalty program kicks in for larger investors). On gross yield, Afranga leads by two or three points.
The net picture is closer. Afranga withholds 10% Bulgarian tax at source, and depending on your double-taxation treaty you may not reclaim all of it (German investors, for instance, can only credit 5% of the 10%). PeerBerry has no withholding at source. So while Afranga wins on the gross number, the gap narrows after tax, especially for investors who can’t fully credit the Bulgarian deduction.
Regulation and Safety
This is Afranga’s clearest win. It holds an ECSP license, the EU’s dedicated crowdfunding regulation, with segregated client funds through Lemonway and an individual IBAN for each investor. PeerBerry operates under lighter Lithuanian licensing with no comparable regulatory framework or compensation scheme.
PeerBerry isn’t unsafe because of this. Its main originators, Aventus Group (~80% of loans) and Gofingo (~15%), are profitable, audited companies, and the platform has run without major incident since 2017. But if you specifically want regulatory oversight and segregated funds, Afranga is the stronger choice on this axis.
Concentration Risk
Both platforms concentrate your risk, just on different lenders. PeerBerry depends on Aventus Group for around 80% of its loan supply. Afranga leans heavily on Stikcredit and the Bulgarian market. In each case, the platform’s loan book is effectively a wager on one lender staying healthy.
Afranga technically has six originators to PeerBerry’s twelve, but its Stikcredit dependence means the headcount overstates its real diversification. Neither platform is broadly spread, and on both you should size your position with that single-point risk in mind.
Convenience and Liquidity
PeerBerry is the more convenient platform to run. It has a working auto-invest tool, so you can set your strategy and leave it. Afranga has no auto-invest, meaning manual loan selection and reinvestment every time capital frees up, which gets tedious if you invest regularly.
On liquidity, both are limited. PeerBerry has no secondary market, but its mostly 30-day loans cycle capital back quickly. Afranga has only a limited secondary market. Neither is the platform to choose if quick early exit matters, though PeerBerry’s short loan terms make the lock-in feel lighter.
Who Should Choose Which?
Choose Afranga if you:
- Want ECSP regulation and segregated funds
- Are after the higher headline return (~13.9%)
- Can fully credit the 10% Bulgarian withholding tax
- Don’t mind manual loan selection and detailed per-loan documentation
Choose PeerBerry if you:
- Want a longer, crisis-tested track record and large scale
- Prefer hands-off investing via auto-invest
- Are investing larger sums and want the loyalty bonus
- Like short 30-day loans with no tax withheld at source
Use both if: You want to pair a regulated, higher-yield platform (Afranga) with a larger, more automated, proven one (PeerBerry), spreading your concentration across Stikcredit and Aventus rather than betting on one.
Verdict
If regulation is your deciding factor, Afranga is the better platform, and its higher yield and clean default record back that up. If you weight track record, scale, and convenience more heavily, PeerBerry is the stronger pick, and its loyalty program makes it especially compelling for larger investors.
I’d treat Afranga as a regulated, higher-yield secondary allocation and PeerBerry as a more established cornerstone of a consumer-loan portfolio. Holding both spreads your risk across two lenders and two countries, which is the sensible way to play platforms that each lean so heavily on a single originator.
For more, read my Afranga Review and PeerBerry Review.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Afranga or PeerBerry better regulated?
Afranga. It holds an ECSP license with segregated funds through Lemonway. PeerBerry operates under lighter Lithuanian licensing with no equivalent framework or compensation scheme, though its main originators are profitable, audited companies.
Which platform pays more?
Afranga on the headline number (~13.9% versus PeerBerry’s ~11%, up to 12% with loyalty). But Afranga’s 10% Bulgarian withholding tax narrows the after-tax gap if you can’t fully credit it at home.
Does Afranga have auto-invest like PeerBerry?
No. Afranga requires manual loan selection and reinvestment. PeerBerry has a working auto-invest tool, which makes it the more hands-off platform of the two.
Related
Leave a Reply