What can explain a big difference between bureaus?

[Anonymous]

I see a 40+ point difference in my scores between EQ and TU/EX, yet the data is more or less similar:

All scores are Fico Score 8's from Credit Check Total:

EX - 770 - 2 inqs (04/2018 and 08/2017) - 4% util  - AAoA 2.5yr oldest 3.8yr - 14 acct (4 closed) 7 with 0 bal 

TU - 773 - No inqs - 4% util - AAoA 2.4yr oldest 3.8yr- 13 acct ( 3 closed) 6 with 0 bal 

EQ - 727 - 1 inq (08/2017) - 4% util  - AAoA 2.5yr oldest 3.8yr - 14 acct (4 closed) 8 with 0 bal

All accounts are reporting identical balances, limits, and highest balances to all bureaus EXCEPT that EQ shows one card with a $0 bal that the others show as having an $80 bal (out of a 15k limit), and TU has dropped a closed line of credit that shows as closed/$0 on the other two. No derogatories of any kind of any of the reports. 

The biggest difference is inquiries, where EX is showing two, TU is showing none, and EQ is showing one (which also appears on EX). TU also shows a slightly lower AAoA because it counts from the exact opening day of each account where the others round down to the 1st of the month accounts were opened.

I get why EX has a slightly lower score than TU--those two inquries. I don't get why EQ would be 40+ points lower than the other two! Particularly where it is the same or better on any factor than EX is (one less inquiry, one more zero bal account).

What can explain this kind of difference? 

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I see a 40+ point difference in my scores between EQ and TU/EX, yet the data is more or less similar:

All scores are Fico Score 8's from Credit Check Total:

EX - 770 - 2 inqs (04/2018 and 08/2017) - 4% util  - AAoA 2.5yr oldest 3.8yr - 14 acct (4 closed) 7 with 0 bal 

TU - 773 - No inqs - 4% util - AAoA 2.4yr oldest 3.8yr- 13 acct ( 3 closed) 6 with 0 bal 

EQ - 727 - 1 inq (08/2017) - 4% util  - AAoA 2.5yr oldest 3.8yr - 14 acct (4 closed) 8 with 0 bal

All accounts are reporting identical balances, limits, and highest balances to all bureaus EXCEPT that EQ shows one card with a $0 bal that the others show as having an $80 bal (out of a 15k limit), and TU has dropped a closed line of credit that shows as closed/$0 on the other two. No derogatories of any kind of any of the reports. 

The biggest difference is inquiries, where EX is showing two, TU is showing none, and EQ is showing one (which also appears on EX). TU also shows a slightly lower AAoA because it counts from the exact opening day of each account where the others round down to the 1st of the month accounts were opened.

I get why EX has a slightly lower score than TU--those two inquries. I don't get why EQ would be 40+ points lower than the other two! Particularly where it is the same or better on any factor than EX is (one less inquiry, one more zero bal account).

What can explain this kind of difference? 

---

Beats me.

[DollyLama]

Is the account that is showing 0 balance on EQ, but $80 on TU and EX, your only card reporting a balance, all the rest are 0 balances? If so, that is the reason, FICO does not like all zero balances reporting on credit cards, low utilization yes. If not, I'm at a loss to explain either. 

[Anonymous]

What account(s) on EQ do you have that has/have a non-zero balance?

[Anonymous]

All three bureaus are reporting the exact same balances on all the cards, except for two where EQ has $0 while the other show a balance (I just noticed a second one). That's backwards from what you'd expect--the bureau showing more zero balance cards has the much worse score.

Here's all the accounts, and the utilization they are at for the ones >5% util, these all report identically to all bureaus except where noted:

Amex $0

BoA $300 

BoA $80 @ EX/TU but $0 at EQ

BoA $4700 (23% of limit)

BECU $0

Chase $1800 (22% of limit)

CITI $280

CITI $120 @ EX/TU, $0 at EQ

Discover $230

First Tech $0

RBC $0 (CLOSED)

RBC $0 (CLOSED, this one doesen't show on EX)

Synch Amazon $0 (CLOSED)

Amex $0 (CLOSED)

Couple of comments: I pay in full every month, and right now I'm not applying for anything so I'm not optimizing my score by paying them all down to $0. Mostly just curious to know why one can be 40 points different than the others.

[Anonymous]

Here are the factors EQ says are hurting my score:

Short credit history (all three say this)
Credit card balances (only EQ says this, although it has overall lower balances due to those two cards reporting zero to it)
No installment loans (only EQ says this, but no bureau shows any installment loan)

And the factors EQ says are helping my score:

No missed payments
Low credit usage
Not seeking credit

On other bureaus EX also gives me "No collection or PR" (I have none on any bureau) and TU gives me "Not seeking credit" (makes sense, TU are the only one with no inq's showing).

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if EQ gives more signal strength to the presence of an open installment loan?

[Anonymous]

I know (at least, I've read elsewhere) that TransUnion places a bigger ding on scores from open store-card accounts than Equifax or Experian. Since I have several store cards, I'm pretty sure that's a major reason why my TU scores have consistently been 20-30 points lower than EX and EQ over the past year and a half, even though the information regarding accounts, balances, negatives, AAoA, etc. is pretty much the same across all three CRA's.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if EQ has a much bigger penalty for new accounts. That last INQ in April resulted in two new BoA cards, my premium rewards and also the cash back card. So I have two accounts that are only three months old.

Maybe EQ is really nailing me hard for that.

[Anonymous]

Ok, I think I have something close to proof that this is new account penalty.

In April I applied for and got two BoA cards, using one HP. The HP reported to EX and EQ and the two new accounts show up on all three bureaus.

I found an archived 3 bureau report from just before the application:

EX 775
TU 775
EQ 765

So EQ was already 10 points lower before the two new accounts but while EX and TU only dropped 2 to 5 points, EQ dropped 38 points when the INQ and two new accounts reported (I can't see whether it was the INQ or accounts or both since I only have EQ scores before and after it all).

My guess is the EQ puts significantly more weight on age of accounts.