@longtimelurker wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:@Anonymous wrote:
From my experience, credit karma is extremely accurate. It has my Vantage Score 3.0 at 767 and my FICO score 8 from Discover is 766. Both are TransUnion data. The only difference is that Creditkarma updates their scores more frequently. It seems like most people who see the biggest discrepancies are ones who have poor credit. I don't even understand how people get below 700 if you pay on time. I've only had credit for about 6 months.Just checked mine today and Discover reported 839 while Credit Karma reported 825, so granted it's not a huge difference, but it's not as close as yours is showing.
Yes, there's no real reason for them to be close. In the same way that the different models of FICO (8, 9, Bankcard, Auto etc) may show small or large differences, CK uses a different model and so will produce a different result. This happens with FICO: as we know here, if say your TU FICO 8 is great, but your issuer pulls EX FICO 8 (or EX FICO 8 Bankcard etc) and gets a less good number, too bad for you....
The reason that here (a site owned by the owners of FICO!) the disparaging term FAKO is used is just because currently most issuers don't primarily use the Vantage score, so it's not important to you in credit making decisions. But it isn't fake. It's possible that one day issuers will decide that the score, or some variant of it, is more predictive, or more cost effective than FICO and make the change.
I understand that many apartment management companies use the VantageScores in their leasing decisions. In that context, they are not "FAKO."
Credit Karma using VantageScores to tout credit products and to advise consumers on credit decisions, then yes, I agree on the "FAKO" label.
1. CK
2. TU 509 EQ 501
3. EX 600 TU 606 TU 597
4. 3 CRA subscription from myFico
5. NFCU goRewards
6. I knew my scores were in the gutter, but many accounts werent being reported as paid. Many of the derogs on the FAKO werent existent in myfico scoring model.
2. TU 509 EQ 501
3. EX 600 TU 606 TU 597
4. 3 CRA subscription from myFico
5. NFCU goRewards
6. I knew my scores were in the gutter, but many accounts werent being reported as paid. Many of the derogs on the FAKO werent existent in myfico scoring model.
@FlaDude wrote:My EX FICO score is 730, TU FICO 720, CK Vantage shows 667 and 665 from TU and EQ. That 60-70 point difference has held for at least a year while both scores have been generally increasing. I have a long credit history, with some of my cards going back 25 years. No derogs in the past 7 years, about 37% util (33k bal on 90k limit), about 26k of other unsecured debt, and one HP this year, two last year. Obviously it is the huge debt load that is suppressing the score, but I'd like to see Vantage close the gap a bit. We recently got a Citi with a 10k limit and 0% BT on my wife's account and am transfering that amount from my balances to hers. I expect all my scores to rise with that, but won't know for a few weeks or so.
I have a legitimate 100 point difference in my FICOS vs. Credit Karma scores. It's very frustrating. Right now my EQ/TU are 634/628 -- My CK Vantage has me at a 508/538. I also am holding a few larger balances right now, my FICOS dipped a bit, however my CreditKarma scores just plummeted. They dropped 45 points to the 508/538 range.
I've been rebuilding for two years now and carry the occasional balances. Have a few collections, REPO in my history, but for two years it's been straight on-time payments on everything, including my student loans.
Really bothers me and I hope lenders continue to use FICO, because in my experience, it's the more accurate score and I don't know why my vantage has such a staggering lower number.
