4 cards at 11-12% or 2 cards at < 29%?

[Anonymous]

I am currently carrying balances that I plan to have paid off in the next year on 0% cards.   I know I cant max my score with these balances, in the meantime, is it better to have 2 cards at a higher %  or more cards at less?  Overall UTI is no different, but does how the balances are spreadout matter?

Thanks for any insight/experience anyone may have. 

[Anonymous]

It will be easier to answer your question if we know how many cards you have total.  We know you have at least four cards.  Do you have exactly four cards?

[Anonymous]

I have 9 total cards, 4 which have a balance. Total UTI is 12%. If I move to just 2, each card would be about 25% or so.

[Anonymous]

There will be no scoring penalty.  There's no evidence I know of that there is any individual utilization penalty at lower than 29%.

On the contrary, it's conceivable that there could be a scoring benefit since you will have a smaller percentage of your cards reporting a positive balance.  Still you are already at < 49% of your cards showing a balance, so perhaps there will be no benefit.

[Revelate]

2/9 was no penalty for me under FICO 8.

3/9 was a small penalty for me under EQ FICO 8 (-3), not on EX nor TU.  

5/9 was the next negative breakpoint for all 3 bureaus, -4 EQ, -7/-8 for the other two.

This was on a dirty birdy scorecard so YMMV on point values.

Wouldn't worry about it but if I were trying to ruthlessly short order optimize it, I'd go with the 2/9.

[Anonymous]

With 9 cards, I wouldn't expect the OP to see much of a difference at all in rolling with 2 of 9 or 4 of 9 reporting balances.  It could be profile (scorecard) specific.  As many know, I have allowed up to and over 50% of my cards report balances and have not seen an adverse scoring reaction, but others have reported minor drops from doing so.