Experian card matches vs CC company prequalifications

[KJinNC]

I'm not particularly looking for credit cards right now, but I noticed something that I'm wondering about, out of academic curiosity.

When I log into the Experian credit monitoring site, I see a lot of cards that are "matched" for me, many from "Experian partners" such as Amex and Discover. Looking within each card, I see what Experian thinks are my odds of approval, which are "good", "better" and "best."

When I check prequalification for these same cards on the Web site of the company that issues them (eg Discover, Amex), I do not get any matches. I should clarify, I have a ton of new credit and inquiries, and I would not really expect to be approved for a lot of stuff right now. I am just wondering, why would Experian be hyping credit card applications that will lead to a lot of denials? Do they get some sort of kickback from CC companies to drive business, or, do they know something the prequal sites don't, or, is it simple error or sloppiness?

Curious what people's experience has been with Experian credit card match, particularly if you applied when Experian said you'd probably qualify but you didn't prequalify with the issuing CC company. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Hi KJinNC,

I believe Experian does get paid if you apply and are approved through their site.  CreditKarma and others state it upfront.  Also, I have two experian apps(experian and CreditCheck).  Most of the cards they recommend, I already have.  

I'm sure some of the more seasoned MF team can weigh in here!

Thanks

[mikesonthemend]

I don't think they are paid for apps, only approvals. So they cast a wide net.

I am never/24 and each of these sites push Chase on me.  They are worthless with the exception of Lending Tree stating what the issuers are looking for from a FICO standpoint, even though Lending Tree is showing fako.

As we know, FICO is just one of the hoops.

[Anonymous]

They kept matching me to Disco cards when Disco site only showed preapprovals for their secured. Since I needed at good BT offer I bravely applied for the It card figuring it would be denied but it was approved and at 3 times my highest limit cards. 18 month 0% BT offer and 6 month 0% purchases. A few weeks later I started receiving preapproved It mailers from Disco. So Exp may be onto something but definitely be careful anyway.

[KJinNC]

A datapoint in favor of Experian not being onto anything special:

The Experian credit card match tool showed my odds of getting the Amex basic Hilton card (the one with no annual fee) as "best" on their "good - better - best" scale. I applied and got insta-denied (my new accounts and recent inquiries were the reasons cited). I don't blame them for denying me and I'm in a weird situation where I don't really care about hard inquiries etc so I'm not all that unhappy, but, clearly Experian missed the boat on this one at least.

It seems that Experian only looks at your EX FICO score and compares that with score ranges for the cards, and does not consider other factors that actual lenders would consider, such as (in my case) credit-seeking behavior and number of inquiries; or if they do consider that, they do so in an incomplete or imperfect way.

[patoot10]

Experian card match is the biggest scam in the business. It's not a pre-approval or even pre-qualification and it offers the basic sign up bonus on the card not the highest available. I would never apply using their ads even if I want to apply for the card.

[Jnbmom]

I agree they push chase on me and I am never/24 with them lol. They also push USAA and if you are not a member you can't get a card through them, so I don't think those offers mean anything.

[Anonymous]

My guess is matching sites run on commission just use a simple algorythm of 90% of applicant with a score of 725 get this card, so if you're 735 chances are excellent, 725 very good, etc.

And for people with a long credit history, their system probably works very well. But people like us, who maximize our scores by doing everyting right on payments and utlization, get tripped up by thin files with short histories.

I've only had one pre-approval, on the Capital One site. Applied and got it (albeit with only a $300 limit)

[KJinNC]

Generally speaking, I find it annoying that there are so many factors that could be in FICO scores but are not in FICO scores, so, you end up with a score that you can't trust. I understand that not everything can be in the score. I also understand that different lenders may choose to emphasize different stuff. I just think it shouldn't be so common for people to say "my score is good but XYZ so I doubt I'd be approved" or "my score is bad but XYZ so I probably will be approved." Those X factors should be part of the score, maybe not 100%, the world will never be perfect, but they could easily be better reflected in scoring models. The data is available.

[Anonymous]

---

@KJinNC wrote:

Generally speaking, I find it annoying that there are so many factors that could be in FICO scores but are not in FICO scores, so, you end up with a score that you can't trust. I understand that not everything can be in the score. I also understand that different lenders may choose to emphasize different stuff. I just think it shouldn't be so common for people to say "my score is good but XYZ so I doubt I'd be approved" or "my score is bad but XYZ so I probably will be approved." Those X factors should be part of the score, maybe not 100%, the world will never be perfect, but they could easily be better reflected in scoring models. The data is available.

---

Credit scores are for the lender, not the consumer, and they’re just another tool to help with UW decisions. Since every lender has different UW criteria, it would be impossible to make a score that works across the industry for the consumer to know their real odds.