Amazing How EQ And TU Differ (Re: Simulation & More)

[jbh]

For those that do not know, it really does seem that EQ is happy to see limited 'new activity'. I have a 3 month old 'new' Orchard card and EQ lists that as 'good' under new credit. Whereas PU (I had to) considers it BAD to have no real new accounts.

Second, I've also noticed JUST how critical it is to not have $0 balances across the board. When I tested with TU and EQ, I owe $337 according to them in order to clear my CC balance. When I enter a simulation of paying 100%, the simulation min and max are at least 10 points lower than if I leave $10+ dollars remaining.

So I will wait for mid sept when both of my balances show 5% but over $0 and see if the simulation works. Also, when I enter $2500 as the value for the 'new credit' simulation, EQ doesn't show the spike that TU does.

So, if you wish to boost EQ, it SEEMS to be that new accounts can be more detrimental than it is with TU. Have any of you noticed this?

I'll keep you informed with how things work, if you are interested in seeing trends over time.

[llecs]

I've noticed that too. I had opened 7 CCs one after another and saw a 50-75 point hit. TU, while damaged, seemed more immune than the others. EX seemed to take it the worse.

[marty56]

It goes without saying that EQ hates lates.  Look at the difference between my TU and EQ scores and both have the same derog info.  I lost points for 0% util on EQ and EX but not TU.  I think EX gives a better boost on lowering util to 9% though.

[jbh]

Interesting. I'm waiting to clear a few baddies (mostly by November) and it'll allow me a better chance to gauge the true difference between EX/TU (EQ won't have the $2500 CJ account) so it'll be interesting to see if TU catches up to EX shortly.

Speaking of which, I hope the CJ account actually boosts the score :/