cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Credit Karma vs FICO

iv
Valued Contributor

Re: Credit Karma vs FICO


@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

@iv wrote:

(Unlike VS2, which was ridiculously easy to pin at 990....)

 


What source is there for a VS2 score?  I've never seen one personally, but would be interested to see it for S&G's if it's possible.


Until early 2015, Credit Karma supplied both TU VS2 and TU NAS, then they added EQ and started offering just VS3 for both EQ and TU.

 

At this point, VS2 seems to have basically disappeared... but it was the easiest score model to max out that I've ever seen.

 

EQ8:850 TU8:850 EX8:850
EQ9:850 TU9:850 EX9:850
EQ5:788 TU4:810 EX2:809 - 2021-05-06
Message 21 of 22
Thomas_Thumb
Senior Contributor

Re: Credit Karma vs FICO


@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

@CreditGuyInDixie wrote:

I wonder whether BBS or iv might get a few extra points on V3 if their total utilization went from < 1% to something like 4.2%.  I believe TT has conjectured that V3 has a sweet spot around there -- and that ultralow utilizations by comparison (e.g. 0.7%) have a small scoring penalty.


While my reported utilization usually sits at 1% aggregate, I have taken it as high as 5% at least once in the last 8 months and it's come in at 3% and 4% a couple of times as well just the way balances fell when I wasn't micromanaging them.  I never saw any clear score shifts on my VS 3.0's (that I couldn't tell were from something else) so I'm not sure that those utilization changes mattered on my profile. 

 


Given that the spike manifest on three separate occassions (each a year apart) somewhere in the 4.0% to 6.0% utilization range, I suspect other clean profiles would show a spike as well. The observed peak score was 2 points higher than achievable in the 0% to 1% UT plateau. The spike is difficult to encounter real time with actual data. What started me on this investigation was an actual 5 point VS3 score spike on all three CRAs going from a reported 3% AG UT to a reported 4% AG UT. The EQ and TU VS3 score jumps happened even though more cards had balances and highest individual card UT increased. I saw the same result on EX VS3 score from credit.com.

 

Even more enlightening was the drop in Experian NE score to 829 from 840 (2/8/2016). Experian NE had always remained at 840 up to this point in time. The credit scoring models were considering the change in # accounts reporting and change in AG UT% but, EX VS3 and EX NE scores were moving in opposite directions.

 

NE & VS3 score prior.jpg

NE & VS3 scores 2-2016.jpg

NE & VS3 scores after.jpg

I pulled a 3B report from MyFico (2/14/2016) and saw a dramatic drop in EQ mortgage score (809 => 764) due to all cards reporting balances (6 of 6) along with notable drops in TU mortgage (823 => 812) and EX mortgage (837 => 832). I pulled another report in March after reducing # cards reporting to 3 from 6 (AG UT down to 2% from 4% - this is inconsequential) and scores rebounded. Conclusion: Various other credit scoring models were seeing and reacting negatively to increase in # accounts with balances and/or increased AG UT% but, VS3 does not look at # accounts with balances and VS3 liked a UT in the 4% to 5% range better than a UT in the 3% range. [side note: All Classic Fico 8 scores remained at 850 - benefit of buffer?]

3B scores 2-2016 and 3-2016.jpg

 

Note: CK summarized UT to the nearest whole number so the real data point lacks precision. I think CK truncates which, if correct, means the reported 4% was somewhere between 4% and 5%.

 

I'd be interested in seeing results for your file - if you are willing to conduct a high resolution simulation. The spike is abrupt so incremental increases in AG UT% should be limited to 0.2% when testing utilization in the 4% to 6% range. It appears the peak can move depending on profile specifics as it manifest around 4.5% to 4.7% one time and then around 5.5 - 5.7% another time a year later.

 

So far, no takers on using CKs simulator to generate detailed simulation data on VS3 score vs aggregate UT%.  Generating the data points would take 10 minutes. Keying in results and generating a graph (like the below) probably another 10 to 20 minutes. Again, pinpointing the peak requires testing small incremental changes and the actual maximum was not static. 

Initial (2016) simulation/graph

VS3 graph.jpg

Recent (late 2018) simulation/graph

VS 3 sim 1-2019.jpg

 

Fico 9: .......EQ 850 TU 850 EX 850
Fico 8: .......EQ 850 TU 850 EX 850
Fico 4 .....:. EQ 809 TU 823 EX 830 EX Fico 98: 842
Fico 8 BC:. EQ 892 TU 900 EX 900
Fico 8 AU:. EQ 887 TU 897 EX 899
Fico 4 BC:. EQ 826 TU 858, EX Fico 98 BC: 870
Fico 4 AU:. EQ 831 TU 872, EX Fico 98 AU: 861
VS 3.0:...... EQ 835 TU 835 EX 835
CBIS: ........EQ LN Auto 940 EQ LN Home 870 TU Auto 902 TU Home 950
Message 22 of 22
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.