@Anonymous wrote:
Barclays based my CLI on the TU FICO score they showed. My TU FICO score here and Walmart TU FICO are both substantially higher than what Barclays TU FICO showed. It doesn't really seem right that the Barclays TU score wasn't the same. I feel pretty confident if they would have used the TU FICO score my CLI would have been more. Kinda disappointed.
Hey nvrgvupnvrsrndr!
What a name to have to write... lol. I hope I got it right!
Welcome to the FICO Forums!
All the score are FICO scores. Fair Isaacs sells different versions of their scoring model to the various lending institutions. All the scores you have listed are FICO scores... the one from Walmart, the TU FICO from here and the one Barclays used to determine your CLI. It's unfortunate that they used a model different then the one you got here or the Walmart TU FICO but still it's a FICO score none the less. There are some really good threads regarding this information on this forum and after reading them, you will have a better understanding of the different versions out there. I wish it were an easier subject to explain but it is a little confusing unfortunately. One thing to note.. does the letter you recieved from Barclays actually say that it's a FICO score? Lending institutions don't always provide a FICO score when sending out "scores" to adhere to the Federal mandate.
Starting Score: 642
@Anonymous wrote:
I received a letter from Barclays regarding my recent CLI. It showed my TU score as 651. Just two weeks ago I pulled my FICO TU and it was 677. My utilization has gone down. No late payments. Barclays did a hard pull to give me the CLI but that shouldn't have dropped my score 27 points. Anyone with any insight as to why there's such a difference between the two?
Just different algoriths...the number is not as important as the substance of your CR.
