Credit Karma vs Credit.com huge disrepancy

[Anonymous]

Credit Karma score = 658 and Credit.com score = 720.  This seems to be a rather large discrepancy for reporting agencies.  Anyone know why?  Do I need to purchase a true FICO score?

[Superduper2014]

Credit Karma uses Trans Union and Equifax

Credit.com uses Experian

Not sure they both use the same scoring model. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Credit Karma score = 658 and Credit.com score = 720.  This seems to be a rather large discrepancy for reporting agencies.  Anyone know why?  Do I need to purchase a true FICO score?

---

If you want to see the score creditors are using to evaluate you, yes.

[MarineVietVet]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Credit Karma score = 658 and Credit.com score = 720.  This seems to be a rather large discrepancy for reporting agencies.  Anyone know why?  Do I need to purchase a true FICO score?

---

CK uses VantageScore 3.0 while credit.com uses the National Equivalency Score and VantageScore 3.0.

While some lenders use VS (Chase did at one time; not sure if they still do) as far as I know no lenders use the National Equivalency Score.

[Transmogrifying_Bee]

CreditKarma now uses VantageScore 3.0 (300-850 scale range) for BOTH TransUnion and Equifax credit scores.

Credit.com gives you TWO different credit scores (both Experian):

1.  Main score - -  Experian's "National Equivalency" score (360-840 scale range).  This is a FAKO score.
2.  "Other score" - -  VantageScore 3.0 

This second score can be directly compared to the CreditKarma scores, since all three are VantageScore 3.0.

On a SIDE NOTE:  There are many so-called FAKO scores circulating in the world of credit score providers.  FAKO is considered to be a "fake" version of a FICO score, although there is usually not any consistent correlation with a FICO score.

Although a VantageScore (3.0 version only) is not a FICO score, I would hesitate to call it a "FAKO" score (my opinion, of course).  The three CRA's are the push behind the VantageScore model, since it saves them from paying fees to FICO.  And I would imagine that they'll continue to push and promote this scoring as much as possible in the future.  Look at the recent conversion of CreditKarma to VantageScore 3.0.

So while VantageScore 3.0 and FICO scores are different and their efficacies in predicting credit worthiness open for debate, I believe we just need to get use to having BOTH models around.

As to VantageScores 1.0 and 2.0, with their confusing scales of 501 to 990 . . . GOOD RIDDANCE...!!!

[Anonymous]

Geez, I never even noticed the other scores link on credit.com! 

[onstar]

Credit.com, CreditKarma.com, CreditSesame.com = 5 scores between 644 and 666

Capital One = 651

Ok, so they are within a reasonable range. And they've been all around the similar mark for the past 6 months. But then ...

Barclay & Discover both show 717. And they've been 700+ for the past 6 months.

:shrug:

[Anonymous]

---

@onstar wrote:

Credit.com, CreditKarma.com, CreditSesame.com = 5 scores between 644 and 666

Capital One = 651

Ok, so they are within a reasonable range. And they've been all around the similar mark for the past 6 months. But then ...

Barclay & Discover both show 717. And they've been 700+ for the past 6 months.

:shrug:

---

Barclays and Discover both show your FICO TU 08 Model score. The others use various FAKO scoring models. Some FAKO models like the Vantage model have limited use by lenders, but they are mostly for educational purposes. Your Barclays and Discover scores, however, are real FICO scores. 

Just bear in mind that even FICO scores might not be relevant to you. There are dozens of versions of FICO scores when you count the different models and industry enhancements. Your FICO TU 08 score is useless when you are shopping for a mortgage because most lenders pull FICO 04 or 98 (or a combo of the two) from the three bureaus and use your middle score. However, the FICO TU 08 model is perfect for CC applications if the lender pulls your TU score (Discover for CLIs, Barclays for its cards, etc). At the end of the day, it is generally best to focus on your credit report and not your score and work on improving aspects of your report. As your credit report improves (more positive lines, more accounts, lower balances, longer history, no derogs, etc), your score will naturally move up across all models. The only time a score matters is when you know which one will be pulled ahead of time or for mere curiousity. 

[DantGwyrdd]

FWIW my CK TU and my Discover and Walmart TUs are all generally very close to one another, the only difference possibly coming from the fact they don't pull the report at the same time and thus don't have the same util data.

[takeshi74]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Credit Karma score = 658 and Credit.com score = 720.  This seems to be a rather large discrepancy for reporting agencies.  Anyone know why?  Do I need to purchase a true FICO score?

---

Keep in mind that even with FICO there are a number of different scoring models in use.  See also the Understanding FICO Scoring subforum and its stickies.  Regardless of FAKO/FICO you can't use a score generated by one model to determine a score generated by a completely different model.  You should expect different algorithms to produce different results.  Instead of fixating on the numbers focus on the data in your reports.

If you want to rely on scores then you'll need to know what CRA and scoring model a creditor that you're applying to uses if you want to see what they're going to pull for you.  Note that you cannot get every score out there.

---

@Transmogrifying_Bee wrote:

Although a VantageScore (3.0 version only) is not a FICO score, I would hesitate to call it a "FAKO" score (my opinion, of course). 

---

A score is either an industry standard FICO or it's a FAKO.  It's one or the other.  FAKO doesn't necessarily mean that it's not used by creditors despite how many seem to assume that to be part of the definition.

---

@Transmogrifying_Bee wrote:

Look at the recent conversion of CreditKarma to VantageScore 3.0.

So while VantageScore 3.0 and FICO scores are different and their efficacies in predicting credit worthiness open for debate, I believe we just need to get use to having BOTH models around.

---

CK doesn't really matter.  It's whether or not creditors use the scoring model that does matter.  While VS claims that VS 3.0 is used by creditors there seems to be a lack of verifiable information on the subject.

---

@onstar wrote:

Credit.com, CreditKarma.com, CreditSesame.com = 5 scores between 644 and 666

Capital One = 651

Ok, so they are within a reasonable range. And they've been all around the similar mark for the past 6 months. But then ...

Barclay & Discover both show 717. And they've been 700+ for the past 6 months. 

---

Don't assume close to be reasonable.  Barclay and Discover are actual FICO's.  No creditors use the scores provided by Credit Sesame or Capital One.  Good luck determining who uses VantageScore 3.0 or how.