Investors comparing European P2P and crowdfunding platforms usually start with returns and end with regulatory status. This article is the reference for the second part. Below is a compiled overview of 46 P2P investment platforms available to European retail investors, grouped by the type of licence each platform holds — from MiFID II-authorised investment firms at one end to platforms operating without a specific EU-level licence at the other.
The purpose is informational. Regulatory status is one data point among several — track record, transparency, portfolio quality, and returns all matter too. The list below tells you what the licensing picture is, not which platform is right for any specific portfolio.
The Four Regulatory Tiers
- Tier 1 – MiFID II: Investment Brokerage Firm licence under the EU's MiFID II framework. 6 platforms.
- Tier 2 – ECSP: European Crowdfunding Service Provider licence. 13 platforms.
- Tier 3 – National regulation: Licensed under a national framework rather than an EU-level directive. 5 platforms.
- Tier 4 – Without EU-specific licence: Operating outside the MiFID II / ECSP / national frameworks listed above. 22 platforms — many well-established and long-running.
Tier 1 — MiFID II
What this licence covers: Investment Brokerage Firm (IBF) authorisation under the EU's Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II. Platforms in this tier are supervised as investment firms, subject to conduct-of-business rules, capital requirements, client-money segregation, and ongoing reporting obligations.
Investor compensation: Up to €20,000 per investor via the national investor compensation scheme (all six platforms below are supervised by Latvijas Banka, Latvia's central bank and financial market regulator).
| Platform | Country | Regulator |
|---|---|---|
| Debitum | Latvia | Latvijas Banka |
| Indemo | Latvia | Latvijas Banka |
| Mintos | Latvia | Latvijas Banka |
| Nectaro | Latvia | Latvijas Banka |
| TWINO | Latvia | Latvijas Banka |
| ViaInvest | Latvia | Latvijas Banka |
Tier 2 — ECSP (European Crowdfunding Service Provider)
What this licence covers: The European Crowdfunding Service Provider Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/1503) is a dedicated EU framework for crowdfunding platforms. It harmonises rules across member states and includes investor information requirements, key investment information sheets, and conduct standards specific to crowdfunding.
Investor compensation: ECSP licensing does not include a statutory investor compensation scheme.
| Platform | Country | Regulator |
|---|---|---|
| Afranga | Bulgaria | Bulgarian FSC |
| Capitalia | Latvia | Latvijas Banka |
| Crowdpear | Lithuania | Bank of Lithuania |
| EstateGuru | Estonia | Estonian FSA |
| FinBee | Lithuania | Bank of Lithuania |
| InRento | Lithuania | Bank of Lithuania |
| InSoil | Lithuania | Bank of Lithuania |
| LANDE | Latvia | Latvijas Banka |
| Lendemarket | Ireland | Central Bank of Ireland |
| Linked Finance | Ireland | Central Bank of Ireland |
| Profitus | Lithuania | Bank of Lithuania |
| Rendity | Austria | FMA Austria |
| Stock.Estate | Romania | Romanian ASF |
Several ECSP-licensed platforms also hold additional national permissions — for example, FinBee holds an electronic money institution (EMI) permission and a national P2P licence alongside its ECSP status.
Tier 3 — National Regulation
What this licence covers: Authorisation under a specific national regulatory framework rather than an EU-level directive. The exact scope varies by country and licence type — some platforms are supervised for consumer credit intermediation, others under national P2P-specific frameworks, others as electronic money institutions.
Investor compensation: Not covered by a statutory investor compensation scheme at the EU level.
| Platform | Country | Regulator |
|---|---|---|
| AxiaFunder | United Kingdom | FCA (UK) |
| Bondora | Estonia | Estonian FSA |
| Modena | Estonia | Estonian FSA |
| Monefit SmartSaver | Estonia | Estonian FSA |
| NEO Finance | Lithuania | Bank of Lithuania |
NEO Finance holds an EMI permission and a national P2P licence but does not currently hold an ECSP licence. AxiaFunder operates under the UK's Financial Conduct Authority, outside the EU's ECSP framework.
Tier 4 — Without EU-Specific Licence
What this covers: Platforms operating outside the MiFID II, ECSP, or national P2P-specific frameworks listed above. Some are structured as marketplaces rather than regulated investment firms; some operate under general company law; some use specific structural exemptions (for example, EU prospectus exemptions).
Important note: A platform's absence from Tiers 1–3 does not indicate anything about its operational quality, track record, or investor experience. This tier includes some of the largest and longest-running P2P platforms in Europe — PeerBerry, Robocash, and Esketit among them — with active investor communities and multi-year performance histories. Investors evaluating platforms in this tier should focus on transparency, track record, published loan performance data, and the structural protections each platform offers (buyback guarantees, group guarantees, collateral, etc.).
| Platform | Country | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Asterra Estate | Estonia | — |
| Bondster | Czechia | — |
| Crowdestor | Latvia | — |
| Devon | Estonia | — |
| Esketit | Croatia | — |
| FF Forest | Latvia | — |
| FinForta | Latvia | — |
| Fintown | Czechia | — |
| Hive5 | Croatia | — |
| Income Marketplace | Estonia | — |
| Iuvo Group | Bulgaria | — |
| Lendiball | Estonia | — |
| Loanch | Estonia | — |
| Lonvest | Croatia | — |
| Maclear | Switzerland | SRO membership (self-regulation) |
| MyPeak Finance | Estonia | — |
| PeerBerry | Croatia | — |
| Robocash | Croatia | — |
| Scramble | Estonia | — |
| Swaper | Estonia | — |
| Triple Dragon Funding | Luxembourg | EU prospectus exemption |
| Ventus Energy | Estonia | — |
How to Read This List
A few observations that make the list easier to interpret:
- Latvia is the centre of MiFID II P2P activity in Europe. All six MiFID II-licensed platforms are Latvia-based and supervised by Latvijas Banka. This concentration reflects the country's early move to adopt the framework specifically for P2P and crowdfunding operators.
- ECSP is spreading across the EU. Tier 2 platforms are spread across seven EU countries, showing that the ECSP regulation has enabled cross-border crowdfunding activity as intended when it entered force.
- Croatia hosts several large Tier 4 platforms. PeerBerry, Robocash, Esketit, Hive5, and Lonvest are all headquartered in Croatia. This is a structural choice; the platforms operate across the EU under company-law arrangements rather than a Croatian financial licence.
- Estonia hosts the widest range. Estonia has platforms in every tier — from EstateGuru (ECSP) and Bondora (national regulation) to Iuvo Group and Swaper (Tier 4).
What Licensing Does and Doesn't Tell You
Licensing information is useful because it's verifiable — anyone can check a platform's status on the regulator's public register. But it doesn't answer several important questions on its own:
- Loan performance and default rates — these are platform-specific and require looking at published statistics.
- Originator quality — many platforms work with third-party loan originators whose credit quality varies.
- Return sustainability — headline yields are marketing numbers; net returns after defaults and delays are what actually reaches investors.
- Buyback obligations and their reliability — a buyback guarantee from a well-capitalised originator is meaningfully different from one from a struggling one.
- Transparency practices — some unregulated platforms publish more granular data than some regulated ones.
For a like-for-like comparison across the platforms we cover in detail, our full platform comparison table puts yields, minimums, features, and regulatory status side by side. Individual platform reviews for the eleven platforms we've evaluated are linked from each row in the tables above.
Licensing details change over time — regulators grant, upgrade, or (rarely) revoke authorisations as platforms evolve. This overview reflects the picture as of July 2026 and will be reviewed as circumstances change. For the most current status of any specific platform, the official register of the relevant regulator is always the authoritative source.