The blue pill, or the red pill?

[tcbofade]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Six of one, half a dozen of the other IMO if you're talking Fico 8 scores.

Aggregate utilization would be the same either way regardless of what you pay down and aggregate utilization is King to individual card utilization (or number of cards with balances).  If you take your highest individual utilization card across a threshold, maybe you'd pick up 6-8 points.  If you were to take your number of cards with balances across a threshold, maybe you'd pick up 4-6 points.  IMO, any difference between the two really isn't worth sweating.

---

Hmmmm.  Not for me. 

I can pay eight or ten accounts to zero for less than $2k.... and have less than 1/3 of my accounts reporting a balance.

Paying eight accounts that are over 60% to under 48% will cost around $8k.

...and THAT will have a greater affect on my aggregate as you pointed out...

[Anonymous]

I think you're confusing aggregate utilization with number of accounts with a [reported non-zero] balance.  Yes, depending on how one distributes their paydown it can impact individual accounts in different ways.  However, aggregate utilization, which is what I was speaking about, would be the same regardless.  Aggregate utilization is the numerator (debt) against the denominator of overall limits.  Whether one pays down $8000 on a single card or pays $1000 down on 8 different cards, the numerator drops the same amount ($8000) and with a constant denominator aggregate utilization will end up the same no matter what.

[NRB525]

I would get each card below 50% as the top priority.

There may be a few points from the 1/3 tof cards thing, but I have seen a couple cycles where getting all individual cards below 50% gives a nice score boost.