Cap One switching from Credit Tracker

[Anonymous]

^ it's not one of the best lol. it may be in YOUR situation but mine is 80 points off. as well as many many others

[Anonymous]

---

---

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:
meaning that vantage score is about as useful is me making up a score for you.

---

I've had a credit card underwritten by Vantage.  Stated right there in my denial letter from Chase pre-recon.

Am sorry but knowing one's Vantage score is nowhere close to useless.  If we wanted to debate the relevance of TU New Account Score that was what Cap 1 used to peddle, then I'd be willing to agree that score was effectively useless.

---

Agree.. VantageScore 3.0 is one of the best models for scoring consistency between the CRAs. My scores (even with minor variations in CRA reports) always track within 5 points of each other and they go up and down in unison. It looks like VS does not ding your score regardless of # cards reporting a balance - aggregate utilization is what counts. if you have cards you should be able to use what you have responsibly (meaning maintaining "low" utilization) without concern of a score drop.  I sure hope Fico adopts this approach - continuous improvement requires competition.

Frankly, the only score I have issues is Fico 04. The model is way to lax in allowing tweaking by CRAs .My EQ Fico 04 score has been erratic and sometimes varies by more than 50 points from TU Fico 04 and EX Fico 04 (yes, the 3B includes an EX Fico 04 - called EX score 3).

  Just because that's how it works on your scores doesn't make it so.  In my situation, the exact opposite is true.  From what I've seen on here, it seems to track more consistantly and closer to FICOs with thick files-something that a lot of people on the free credit reporting sites don't have.  It's most important for those people to be getting accurate information on their situation, and not this silly Vantage claptrap.

---

---

[Revelate]

I'm honestly curious, who are the many regarding wild fluctuations in VS not seen in FICO?  To be clear on credit.com, we're talking the VS 3.0 listed under Additional Scores rather than the main Experian National Equivalency Score they toss up in the top left corner by default for some unknown reason?

Before my stupid issue on TU, my scores were within 3 points of each other on VS 3.0, that's an order of magnitude difference compared to FICO models (700 EQ Beacon 5.0, 731 TU Classic 04 for example), and FICO has tacitly acknowledged the lender complaints about score variation between CRA's as legitimate.

I've been reading these forums for a while, the vast majority of people assuming consistent information between the files to be far closer in score on VS 3.0 than FICO 98 through FICO 8, and FICO 9 which was supposed to address that is absurdly different in my case unless the inquiry calculation as we know it has been completely thrown out for FICO 9 and that's the only possible way I can explain that discrepancy.

@TT: huh that's new; they used to have EX 04 Bankcard (Risk Model v3) now looks like EX 02 Bankcard and EX 04 Classic... which is news to me anyway.  Don't get me started on Bankcard scores, there's serious variation there on pretty standard things in the algorithm (like your aforementioned number of tradelines with balances, and like you I agree it's a stupid archaic measurement).

[Anonymous]

I didn't realize that the first score on Credit.com wasn't Vantage 3.  Anyway, I clicked on the other scores tab and my Vantage3 EX is 699.  Just checked CK, and they have me at 711 for EQ and 615 for TU.  So the spred is 96 points!   The only difference between the information on my EX and EQ is that EX has one more inquiry on it.  Why the TU is so low, I don't know. 

My actual FICO8 score for EQ is 675 and EX is 668.  My TU, which benefits from two old closed positive accounts still showing and thus a much longer AAA, is 689.  So the FICO 8 spread is only 21 points, and the reasons for the difference make sense.

So maybe the Vantage3 gives good information to some, but it sure doesn't for me.  I used to check on it all the time-now I look at it only out of curiosity.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Revelate wrote:

I'm honestly curious, who are the many regarding wild fluctuations in VS not seen in FICO?  To be clear on credit.com, we're talking the VS 3.0 listed under Additional Scores rather than the main Experian National Equivalency Score they toss up in the top left corner by default for some unknown reason?

Before my stupid issue on TU, my scores were within 3 points of each other on VS 3.0, that's an order of magnitude difference compared to FICO models (700 EQ Beacon 5.0, 731 TU Classic 04 for example), and FICO has tacitly acknowledged the lender complaints about score variation between CRA's as legitimate.

I've been reading these forums for a while, the vast majority of people assuming consistent information between the files to be far closer in score on VS 3.0 than FICO 98 through FICO 8, and FICO 9 which was supposed to address that is absurdly different in my case unless the inquiry calculation as we know it has been completely thrown out for FICO 9 and that's the only possible way I can explain that discrepancy.

@Anonymous: huh that's new; they used to have EX 04 Bankcard (Risk Model v3) now looks like EX 02 Bankcard and EX 04 Classic... which is news to me anyway.  Don't get me started on Bankcard scores, there's serious variation there on pretty standard things in the algorithm (like your aforementioned number of tradelines with balances, and like you I agree it's a stupid archaic measurement).

---

Revelate, the 3B report may list the EX score 3 under the bankcard section, but it is not an enhanced Fico score - take that to the bank.

See the below pastes. The EX score 3 shows a range max at 850 - same as Classic Fico. All enhanced scores will show a 900 end point. Also it shows no reason statements. Enhanced scores show reason statements when you drop below 850 and Classic scores when they fall below 800. Furthermore, the description "under the circle" for enhanced scores will say either "Auto" or Bankcard".

Also pasted below is one of the wild rides I get from EQ 04 (Classic and Enhanced) when I let all cards report small balances [including my AMEX which appears to be a trigger- the card is coded incorrectly]. This has happened more than once (AG CC utilization maintained under 4% in all cases). Note the greater shift in EX score 3 relative to EX score 2 - I suspect Fico 04 gives more weight to # cards reporting relative to Fico 98 perhaps because Fico 04 overlooks installment loan balances in scoring.