How Accurate are Plus Scores?

[Anonymous]

I'm wondering how accurate my Plus credit scores are as compared to Fico scores?

[JoeBJay20]

The short answer is not very.  Because FAKO scores like Plus have a different methodology, there's no strong correlation between it and the FICO score.  There are numerous instances of actions that caused a rise in Plus scores have caused a drop in FICO scores, and vice versa.  Regardless, those scores are used by virtually no creditors, so it's a worthless number. 

[Anonymous]

They are as reliable as the True Credit scores.

[llecs]

---

cobra19 wrote:

They are as reliable as the True Credit scores.

---

....and about as reliable as my own made up score. 800s for everyone!

[Anonymous]

They are extremely accurate.....for a PLUS score.

However, it has no relationship to FICO, and thus if you are comparing to FICO, there is no conversion or way to use one to determine the other.

[nothingman02]

IMHO, the FAKO scores are not useful. Their acuracy is not of any significance if they are of no use. Debating their accuracy wont do any good either since we dont know their methodology. 

I used to think that they would atleast help me understand where I stood w.r.t my FICO score (which is what is considered for all practical purposes) but then they(FAKOs) typically prove me wrong.

[Anonymous]

The "fako" scores are fine to track credit report changes and effect of changes IF you are not shopping credit.  For example, if you have established adequate credit and will not be applying for new credit, then you can use the "fako" as called to measure "changes" or progress in general because they are often "free" in association with many of the monitoring or credit report services.

However, once you plan to SHOP for new credit, then obtaining a true FICO will tell you what to expect from creditors. 

Scores are like any measuring system.  I can measure in feet, inches, meters, etc.  Any can tell me what I need to know for my own purposes.  But I need to use a "standardized" measuring system once I  plan to interact with outside parties about these measurements.

My point is, FICO scores are only relevant when you need something...new credit, new loans, new insurance.  All scores can tell you when something derogatory or positive has ocurred.  And if you aren't app'ing, then paying the additional money for a "standardized measurement" isn't really of any particular use, except sheer curiousity.

[nothingman02]

I notice that you take exception to them being labelled as  FAKOs by your allusion. However they are not labelled as such for nothing. Least of not is the fact that they are slyly advocated as FICO scores by the CRAs.  But thats digressing. 

Essentially, I disagree with your points. And I'll explain why.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The "fako" scores are fine to track credit report changes and effect of changes IF you are not shopping credit.  For example, if you have established adequate credit and will not be applying for new credit, then you can use the "fako" as called to measure "changes" or progress in general because they are often "free" in association with many of the monitoring or credit report services.

After an AU account was added,

My FICO went up from 576 to 602

My CCT went from 610ish to 743

My truecredit didnt budge at 588.

With a hard inquiry yesterday,

My FICO did not change at 634

My CCT went from 747 to 743

My truecredit went from 601 to 588

Im afraid you can or can not track changes, if that makes any sense. Essentially they are rendered useless.

However, once you plan to SHOP for new credit, then obtaining a true FICO will tell you what to expect from creditors. 

Again, my FICO is 634. If I were to follow my truecredit score, i'd be under the impression that my FICO is somewhere around 588. If I was following CCT, I would aim high with my 747. Any which way, obtaining the FICO just before I app would stun me and make me rethink.

Scores are like any measuring system.  I can measure in feet, inches, meters, etc.  Any can tell me what I need to know for my own purposes.  But I need to use a "standardized" measuring system once I  plan to interact with outside parties about these measurements.

Feet or metres, inches or cms, lbs or kgs, Kelvin or Celcius, they are all related and follow a relationship and can be converted from one to another. Thats not true with FAKOs and FICOs. 

My point is, FICO scores are only relevant when you need something...new credit, new loans, new insurance.  All scores can tell you when something derogatory or positive has ocurred.  And if you aren't app'ing, then paying the additional money for a "standardized measurement" isn't really of any particular use, except sheer curiousity.

---

On what basis really can you state that the PLUS score is 'accurate'? How does it reflect Age? or UTL? Payment history? lates, COs CAs...any clue? How do you explain they are so very accurate?

How can you state they accurately track changes and give you a good idea about the FICO? Essentially you are describing a relationship between FAKOs and FICO. 

[Anonymous]

I am so glad that you posted this.  I have always wanted to get all scores to see if there is any real correlation but I don't want to spend money if I don't have to.  I have seen people post it all the time that there is no correlation but seeing it on paper makes it so much clearer. I have purchased the FAKO scores from Experian but after reading your post I am done.  It really sounds like a monumental waste of money.  I will only purchase my FICO from this site or Equifax.  Thanks so much.

[Anonymous]

nothing-

In your case, you should use only FICO, because you are looking for some direct correlation or ability to "convert" between scores.

If you read the general context of my post, I said these scores would be fine a general indicator for somebody who does not need and is not shopping new credit.

In fact, to continually pull, and pay for, a FICO score is a complete waste of money that could be used for many other purposes.

In every example you gave, you used FICO as the standard, which I stipulated is the general standard if you need credit.

But as a general credit health monitor, any of the major scores can guide you.  My TU scores when I began my journey of repair were all in the 500's.  They are now "mid 700's"  Obviously this general trend shows my overall improvement.

But if you want to nit pick the value of an inquiry (x points from FICO vs y points from TU) then you need FICO.

I find that many on this board may be TOO preoccupied with the FICO and very small changes in their score.

I have TrueCredit.  And while I do not use those scores as the basis to compare to lender score qualifications, the combination of alerts, credit reports and scores with comments, I can see 'generally' what I need.

Good credit is good credit.  If you have solid TL's, a good payment history, low to moderate debt, aging, a good mix, etc.  then you have good credit and  you don't need FICO to tell you that.  You only need FICO to determine what a creditor might say about an application.

But you cannot "compare" scores or look for direct conversions between, because they all weight and score individual components differently.  And for the record, PLUS, Vantage and TU are all far more conservative than FICO, in my circumstance.  So when I am able to move these scores upward, I know that my FICO is doing just fine.