FICO to Vantage Score Ranges Comparison

[Anonymous]

I would like to share what I have found where trying to understand the correlation between FICO and Vantage scores. I welcome critical comments and positive suggestions for the following: I was unable to find an accurate formula that converted a Vantage score to a FICO score. I went back and I compared the stated ranges of credit (for example: Excellent, Very Good, Good and so on for FICO / A, B, C, and so on for Vantage). Using information from research I determined that an "A" Vantage score was comparable to an "Excellent" FICO score and similarly a "B" Vantage score was comparable to a "Very Good" FICO score in terms of how lenders adjust interest rates. Using this information I created a cross matrix of scores for each showing the Low End, Middle, and High End scores of each range.  I then continued to split the numbers as shown below.  I was surprised to see my current Vantage and FICO scores fit this model.  I do believe that the model looses some predicatability in the lowest ranges because FICO actually has 6 ranges (Very Bad not shown) and Vantage has 5, I compensated by combining the lowest two FICO ranges into one.

                       Vantage®

Low ----- Mid ----- High Range

901  923 946 968 990 A

801 826 851 875 900 B

701 726 751 775 800 C

601  626 651  675 700 D

501  526 551  575 600 F

               FICO®

Low ----- Mid ----- High Range

720 753 785  818 850 Excellent

690 697 705 712 719 Very Good

660 667 675  682 689 Good

620 630 640 649 659 Poor

350 417 485 552 619 Bad

[Anonymous]

Sorry, RRinTn, there is no meaningful correlation.  I totally understand your desire to make it so, but it just ain't there.

FICO uses a different algorithm or set of algorithms than Vantage.  They are complex little beasties.  As John Ulzheimer, who has worked with both Fair Isaac and Equifax puts it, rockets scientists have nothing on the guys that put your credit scores together.

Unfortunately, it's not like translating celsius to fahrenheit.  Vantage varies from FICO in it's very first "step" - Vantage first groups consumers into one of 12 homogeneous segments and then calculates the consumer’s VantageScore within the segment .  FICO's scoring "buckets" and all the intricacies within the "buckets" are different.  That is why your Vantage score can go down, while your FICO score goes up - and vice versa.

The most predictable way of determining your FICO score is to pull it, or check it out when a creditor pulls it for you.  See Barry's latest blog entry on Lenders Providing Scores.

[llecs]

To add, I recently pulled my TU FICO and Vantage via TU through CK's site and on the same day, my Vantage score was in the D range and my TU FICO was in the "Very Good" range. Both cannot be true and thankfully my lender didn't use Vantage. BTW, for those reading FICO's ranges as shown on the FICO reports are different. I think it goes from Bad to Great with 660-719 being "Good" and 720-759, I believe, being Very Good and then Great 760 and up. I think "Not Good" is 580(?) to 659 and Bad below that.

On the VS score, their formula is wacked out as mentioned. It factors in stuff that FICO does not and vice-versa. The one difference that impacts quite a few is that VS doesn't factor in AUs and FICO does. Util is treated very differently too.

[MarineVietVet]

To add just one more piece here is how FICO and VS breakdown different aspects of your score.

[smallfry]

You know marine based on that chart you posted the scores should be fairly similar. Not exact but the scoring logarithm is more alike than not. I don't see why there are such big differences between the 2.

[llecs]

---

@smallfry wrote:

You know marine based on that chart you posted the scores should be fairly similar. Not exact but the scoring logarithm is more alike than not. I don't see why there are such big differences between the 2.

---

One big difference is "available credit". FICO scores on your balance in relation to your CL. VS scores on available credit in relation to the CL. In FICO scoring, you can have mere hundreds in CLs and still have a 800 FICO. That's not the case with VS; you need to have high CLs in order to have a higher score.

[MattH]

As others have said, there does not exist a direct conversion because the underlying formulas differ.  Probably the best one can do is to compare percentages of the population who fall in various score ranges, as given here:

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/Formula-for-converting-the-Vantange-score...

[Anonymous]

This type of chart is appealing - however there is still not an across the board equivalency.  C

omparing FICO to Vantage is not the same as converting celsius to fahrenheit.

The difference being that I can be in the upper 90% on FICO but can (and will) be only in the upper 76% on Vantage.  Or vice versa.

We still go back to different algorithms.

[smallfry]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

This type of chart is appealing - however there is still not an across the board equivalency.  C

omparing FICO to Vantage is not the same as converting celsius to fahrenheit.

The difference being that I can be in the upper 90% on FICO but can (and will) be only in the upper 76% on Vantage.  Or vice versa.

We still go back to different algorithms.

---

Yep. My EX from PSECU is 788. Vantage is 950 and the score you get from Quizzle is only 736 out of 850. Never could figure that one out. 

[hateAshbury]

If a large enough number of persons posted both FICO and Vantage, one could generate a reasonable mapping between the two scales. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be more than workable and would certainly be "good enough"

That said, here are my stats:

696 TransUnion FICO (as of Feb 1, 2012)

745 VantageScore (as of Mar. 12, 2012)