What is more important, aggregate util or the util for each card individually?

[SRT4kid93]

in general, which is worse?

Let's say you have 3 cards with credit limits of $5000 each for a total of $15k.

now let's say the following scenarios were to happen.

Situation 1)

card 1- 5k/5k for 100% util

card 2-$0/5k

card 3-$0/5k

situation 2)

card 1-1500/5k

card 2-1500/5k

card 3-1k/5k

situation 3)

card 1- 2500/5k

card 2-2500/5k

card 3-$0/5k

which scenario would be worse?

In the 1st scenario, you only have 1 card reporting a balance for AZEO and it's also less than 50% of your cards reporting a balance which are both good.  But, you allowed 1 card to become completely maxed out which is really not good. 

in the 2nd scenario, none of your cards hit the 30% util ratio threshold. Which is good. But you have all 3 cards reporting a balance, which is bad. 

in the 3rd scenario, 2 out of the 3 cards report a balance, both cards are at the 50% util ratio, but you don't allow any of them to get maxed out. 

[FicoMike0]

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

in general, which is worse?

Let's say you have 3 cards with credit limits of $5000 each for a total of $15k.

now let's say the following scenarios were to happen.

Situation 1)

card 1- 5k/5k for 100% util

card 2-$0/5k

card 3-$0/5k

situation 2)

card 1-1500/5k

card 2-1500/5k

card 3-1k/5k

situation 3)

card 1- 2500/5k

card 2-2500/5k

card 3-$0/5k

which scenario would be worse?

In the 1st scenario, you only have 1 card reporting a balance for AZEO and it's also less than 50% of your cards reporting a balance which are both good.  But, you allowed 1 card to become completely maxed out which is really not good. 

your agg util is 33%, not great and your likely to be balance chased on card 1.

in the 2nd scenario, none of your cards hit the 30% util ratio threshold. Which is good. But you have all 3 cards reporting a balance, which is bad. 

Wrong, two are at 30%.

in the 3rd scenario, 2 out of the 3 cards report a balance, both cards are at the 50% util ratio, but you don't allow any of them to get maxed out. 

Better than scenario 1.

---

[SRT4kid93]

Yes sorry, for situation 2 I meant to say 2 cards not 1.

So it sounds like scenario 1 would be the worst?

[Thomas_Thumb]

#1 is the worst by far. #2 is better than #3 even though all cards have a balance. Note: in scenario #2 the 3rd card should have a $2k balance to maintain constant total balance. It would still score higher than scenario #3 even with the 3rd card at $2k. Why? In #3 highest card is above a 49% utilization. Not so with #2.

With Fico 8 and later models #/% of accounts with balances is downplayed. If you are looking at the older Fico "mortgage models" EQ score 5 and TU score 4 might be higher with #3 than #2.

[SouthJamaica]

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

in general, which is worse?

Let's say you have 3 cards with credit limits of $5000 each for a total of $15k.

now let's say the following scenarios were to happen.

Situation 1)

card 1- 5k/5k for 100% util

card 2-$0/5k

card 3-$0/5k

situation 2)

card 1-1500/5k

card 2-1500/5k

card 3-1k/5k

situation 3)

card 1- 2500/5k

card 2-2500/5k

card 3-$0/5k

which scenario would be worse?

In the 1st scenario, you only have 1 card reporting a balance for AZEO and it's also less than 50% of your cards reporting a balance which are both good.  But, you allowed 1 card to become completely maxed out which is really not good. 

in the 2nd scenario, none of your cards hit the 30% util ratio threshold. Which is good. But you have all 3 cards reporting a balance, which is bad. 

in the 3rd scenario, 2 out of the 3 cards report a balance, both cards are at the 50% util ratio, but you don't allow any of them to get maxed out. 

---

1st and 3rd are worst. 2nd is the best.