@Remedios wrote:@Anonymous I did not interpret it as disrespect. While i really meant what I said about SJ, rest was a joke involved abundant use of the word "excellent", mainly because I find those descriptors useless.
While they do tell you that everything is not optimized, they offer very little guidance on why.
Hope that clarifies it.
Your use of the word "excellent" is exceptional 
@Anonymous wrote:ITD and BBS, thank you for the responses. Just wanted to ensure I had all of the bases covered.
Within the requirements backlog of Experian's website content product manager, there had to be some method to attain Exceptional in Experian's category rating? Despite the fluff of their made-up descriptions, I would agree with the assignment of their ratings to my other categories. I wonder if anyone out there in MyFico land has Exceptional in this category, and would be curious to learn about their credit mix.
Mine is Exceptional; and I don't have a mortgage.
My mix is exceptional and I’ve got 10 open accounts that are all revolvers (9 CCs, 1 CLOC) and 1 closed installment that was a personal loan for $2500 from 8/2017 to 1/2019.
I think its a bunch of hogwash. 🤷♂️
No "exceptional" for me 
@Anonymous wrote:My mix is exceptional and I’ve got 10 open accounts that are all revolvers (9 CCs, 1 CLOC) and 1 closed installment that was a personal loan for $2500 from 8/2017 to 1/2019.
I think its a bunch of hogwash. 🤷♂️
This data above proves that the whole "rating" system is BS. With no open installment loan, we know that Saeren is missing out on FICO points and that from a credit mix standpoint there are opportunities.
1 closed installment loan and 2 open revolving accounts also equals 'Very Good'.
With 1 open installment loan and 0 revolving accounts it was 'Fair' (only 1 account on file). That was 4 months ago - 12/23/18.
@Anonymous wrote:I'mTheDevil made an interesting guess (post #2) which was that the front-end software might be including "number of accounts" as a scoring factor -- and if so, it might well be parking this in the Credit Mix category.
Although as BBS and others have observed, the programmers of any front-end summary page often invent scoring factors that do not exist at all inside the back-end algorithm that generates the score (or if they do exist, have a very different weight), there is in this case some evidence that "number of accounts" does in fact matter. Contributor Thomas Thumb and others have discussed this based on explicit negative reason statements that they see. Last I remember the guess was that a small penalty exists when you have only (say) 4-5 open accounts or if your total number of closed and open accounts together was fewer than (say) 9.
Curiously there also appears to be a small penalty (detected from an analysis of reason codes by Revelate) when you have too many accounts as well. The sweet spot may be something like at least 8 open accounts and at least 10 total accounts, but no more than 17 open accounts.
PS. When a person's "number of accounts" is quite small (e.g. 1-3 accounts) then it can have a far more pronounced effect on that person's score, by shunting him into a scorecard reserved for very "thin" profiles. Our OP has enough accounts to not be considered thin in that sense.
If there is a "too many accounts" penalty, I am certainly getting it, having around 60 open and closed accounts in my report, but it's not reflected in the "credit mix" reason code on EX, where I am designated by the front end software as "exceptional" in the "credit mix" department.