Finravia rating methodology for financial products
Updated: 10.02.2026.
This methodology explains how Finravia rates and compares personal loans, credit cards, and debit cards across Mexico, Poland, Sweden, Romania and Kazakhstan. Finravia publishes informational product content and comparisons; we do not issue credit, do not approve applications, and do not set pricing. Final eligibility, pricing, and contract terms are determined by the provider.
Evidence, verification, and updates
Finravia prioritizes primary evidence. We rely first on official laws, regulator guidance, official registers, and official calculators; then on the provider’s binding documents such as fee schedules, terms and conditions, and pre-contractual disclosures; and only then on reputable secondary references used to clarify context. For each product page, we run a document extraction pass that captures pricing, fees, penalties, eligibility, repayment mechanics, complaint routes, and data practices, followed by a country-alignment pass that checks whether the local comparison metric is disclosed correctly and whether the provider’s legal standing can be validated through official sources.
Each rated product has evidence timestamps tied to the documents used. When official definitions or disclosure requirements change, affected pages are reviewed to keep the comparison basis consistent over time. Mexico’s CAT, for example, is defined by Banco de México as an annualized financing cost measure that incorporates inherent costs and expenses for information and comparison purposes.
How scores are calculated (1–5 to 0–100)
Each product category is rated independently on a 0–100 scale using category-specific criteria whose weights sum to 100%. For every criterion, editors assign a score from 1 to 5 based on verifiable evidence. The 1–5 score is converted into a percentage using P = (S − 1) / 4 × 100, where S is the editor score and P is the criterion percentage. The final product score is the weighted sum of all criterion percentages.
If required pricing disclosures or binding fee documents cannot be located in primary sources or official provider documents, the product is marked as insufficiently disclosed and is either excluded from comparisons or receives minimum scores on the affected criteria, depending on the severity and whether the missing information prevents a meaningful cost comparison.
Personal loans and installment loans
This section describes how Finravia rates personal loans and installment loans in each country, using the local all-in cost comparator and country-relevant consumer protection signals. The tables below define the full 100% weight distribution per country.
Mexico (MX)
Finravia evaluates loans in Mexico using CAT as the primary all-in cost anchor and focuses on whether users can understand the full repayment picture before committing to the product. CAT is treated as the core comparability field because Banco de México defines it as an annualized financing cost measure intended for information and comparison, incorporating inherent costs and expenses.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| CAT disclosure quality (visibility, consistency, representative example when applicable) | 25% | CAT is clearly shown, comparable, and aligned with binding documents. |
| Total fees and penalty transparency (including mandatory add-ons) | 18% | All fees and triggers are stated upfront or linked to an official fee table. |
| Repayment schedule clarity (amortization logic, partial/early repayment) | 10% | Repayment structure and early repayment conditions are understandable and verifiable. |
| Eligibility and verification transparency | 10% | Requirements, exclusions, and verification steps are explicit and realistic. |
| Disbursement and repayment mechanics | 8% | Funding timing claims are supported by terms; payment channels are clear. |
| Contract and document accessibility | 10% | Binding terms and fee documents are easy to find and match the page summary. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity | 10% | A clear complaint path and escalation route are visible and workable for users. |
| Data handling clarity (what is collected, why, rights, contact) | 5% | Privacy notice explains collection and user rights in plain language. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 4% | Account protections and verification controls are described clearly. |
Poland (PL)
Finravia evaluates loans in Poland around RRSO as the practical all-in comparator and applies strict screening for legal standing signals and warning-list risk. The KNF public warnings framework is treated as a high-impact risk signal because it contains information on notifications of suspected criminal offences submitted by the KNF.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| RRSO disclosure quality (visibility, comparability, example) | 22% | RRSO is shown clearly and not replaced by nominal-only messaging. |
| Fees and penalty transparency (including ancillary costs) | 18% | All charges are visible and understandable before application steps. |
| Legal standing and warnings screening impact | 15% | Provider/intermediary can be validated; KNF warnings materially reduce score or trigger exclusion. |
| Contract and document accessibility | 10% | Key documents are easy to find, current, and consistent with claims. |
| Eligibility clarity and role transparency (lender vs intermediary) | 10% | The user can identify who provides credit and who intermediates. |
| Repayment flexibility and early repayment rules | 8% | Early/partial repayment rules and costs are clear and verifiable. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity | 7% | Internal support and escalation information are easy to locate and usable. |
| Data handling clarity | 6% | Data scope is proportionate and explained in the privacy notice. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 4% | Practical protections are described in user-relevant terms. |
Sweden (SE)
Finravia evaluates loans in Sweden with strong emphasis on effective-rate presentation and total-cost integrity in marketing and product presentation. Swedish consumer credit marketing guidance expects the effective interest rate to be stated and supported with a representative example, including in space-restricted formats. The complaint route is treated as measurable because filing with ARN requires an application fee of 150 SEK, which affects real escalation friction for consumers.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Effective rate disclosure quality and representative example | 25% | Effective rate is prominent and supported by a representative example where expected. |
| Fee transparency and “total cost” integrity | 20% | Fees are not hidden and do not contradict the effective-rate presentation. |
| Marketing clarity of key conditions | 10% | Key cost mechanics are not obscured by headline claims. |
| Contract and document accessibility | 10% | Terms and fee schedules are accessible and consistent. |
| Eligibility and verification transparency | 8% | Requirements and verification steps are explicit and realistic. |
| Repayment flexibility and early repayment rules | 8% | Rules are clear and comparable. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity (including ARN visibility) | 10% | Escalation route is visible; ARN filing fee details are accurate when mentioned. |
| Data handling clarity | 5% | Data scope and consumer rights are explained. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 4% | Controls are described clearly and consistently. |
Romania (RO)
Finravia evaluates loans in Romania using DAE as the core all-in cost anchor and checks whether the product page reflects the legal concept of total annual cost comparability. Romania’s official legislative portal describes DAE as the total cost expressed as an annual percentage of the total value of the credit and notes that it helps consumers compare different offers. Dispute resolution transparency matters because CSALB states its procedures are free of charge for consumers.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| DAE disclosure quality (visibility, comparability, example) | 24% | DAE is presented clearly and consistently with documents. |
| Fee transparency and bundled add-ons (insurance/services) | 18% | Add-ons are clearly optional or mandatory and their cost impact is visible. |
| Contract and document accessibility | 12% | Terms and fee schedules are current and easy to reach. |
| Eligibility clarity | 10% | Requirements and exclusions are clearly stated. |
| Repayment flexibility and early repayment rules | 8% | Early repayment and restructuring rules are clear. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity (including CSALB visibility) | 12% | Escalation route is visible and accurate; CSALB description matches official statements. |
| Data handling clarity | 10% | Privacy notice clarity and proportionality of data collection. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 6% | Practical controls and verification protections are described. |
Kazakhstan (KZ)
Finravia evaluates loans in Kazakhstan using the annual effective interest rate metric (ГЭСВ) as the all-in cost anchor and verifies disclosure against official rules for its calculation. The Adilet legal information system publishes rules establishing the procedure for calculating the annual effective interest rate under a loan agreement concluded with an individual borrower.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| ГЭСВ disclosure quality (visibility, comparability, calculation alignment) | 25% | ГЭСВ is disclosed clearly and aligns with official calculation rules. |
| Fee transparency and inclusion logic (what is inside/outside ГЭСВ) | 18% | Fees and included payments are explained without ambiguity. |
| Legal standing signals | 12% | Provider basis can be validated through official sources. |
| Contract and document accessibility | 10% | Terms, tariffs, and key disclosures are accessible and consistent. |
| Eligibility and verification transparency | 10% | Requirements and checks are explicit and realistic. |
| Repayment flexibility and early repayment rules | 8% | Early repayment and restructuring conditions are clear. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity | 7% | Support and escalation routes are visible and usable. |
| Data handling clarity | 6% | Data collection scope and rights are explained clearly. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 4% | Practical protections are described. |
Credit cards
This section describes how Finravia rates credit cards per country, with country-relevant cost comparators and fee drivers that typically dominate real-world outcomes. The tables below define the full 100% weight distribution per country.
Mexico (MX)
Finravia evaluates credit cards in Mexico with CAT-based cost comparability and strong emphasis on fee triggers that materially change everyday costs. CAT is treated as the core comparability field because Banco de México defines it as an annualized financing cost measure incorporating inherent costs and expenses for information and comparison.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| CAT disclosure quality and comparability | 22% | CAT is visible, comparable, and aligned with binding documents. |
| Fee transparency (annual fee, cash withdrawal, FX, late fees) | 24% | Fees and triggers are explicit before application steps. |
| Interest-free period mechanics (if offered) | 14% | Conditions, timing, and exclusions are clear and consistent. |
| Revolving interest and statement mechanics | 12% | How interest accrues and statements work is understandable and verifiable. |
| Rewards value measurability | 10% | Rewards value and limitations are measurable and transparent. |
| Contract and document accessibility | 8% | Terms and fee tables are easy to access and consistent. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity | 5% | A clear complaint and escalation route is visible. |
| Data handling clarity | 3% | Data collection and rights are explained clearly. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 2% | Relevant protections are described. |
Poland (PL)
Finravia evaluates credit cards in Poland by emphasizing effective cost clarity, full fee visibility in typical use, and issuer accountability, while applying high-impact screening for KNF public warnings risk. The KNF public warnings list includes information on notifications of suspected criminal offences, so warning-list presence materially reduces score or triggers exclusion.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Effective cost disclosure clarity (APR equivalent and examples) | 18% | Cost is explained in a comparable way, not nominal-only. |
| Fee transparency (annual, FX, cash, late, replacement) | 26% | Fees are complete and triggers are clear. |
| Legal standing and warnings screening impact | 14% | Standing is verifiable; KNF warnings materially reduce score or trigger exclusion. |
| Interest-free period mechanics (if offered) | 12% | Conditions and exclusions are clear and consistent. |
| Rewards value measurability | 12% | Value and limitations are measurable and clear. |
| Contract and document accessibility | 10% | Issuer documents and tariffs are accessible and consistent. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity | 5% | Escalation route is visible and usable. |
| Data handling clarity | 2% | Data scope is proportionate and clear. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 1% | Protections are described. |
Sweden (SE)
Finravia evaluates credit cards in Sweden around effective-rate presentation discipline and total-cost integrity, including representative-example expectations in marketing contexts. Swedish consumer credit marketing guidance expects the effective interest rate to be stated and supported with a representative example, including in space-restricted formats. Dispute escalation visibility is treated as measurable because ARN filings require a 150 SEK application fee.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Effective rate disclosure quality and prominence | 22% | Effective rate is prominent and supported by a representative example where expected. |
| Fee transparency (annual, FX, cash, late) | 22% | Fees are complete and easy to verify. |
| Interest-free period mechanics (if offered) | 14% | Rules are clear and consistent. |
| Total-cost integrity (fees vs rate messaging consistency) | 14% | Rate claims do not contradict fee reality. |
| Contract and document accessibility | 10% | Terms and tariffs are accessible. |
| Rewards value measurability | 8% | Rewards are measurable and limitations are clear. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity (including ARN visibility) | 7% | Escalation route is visible and accurately described. |
| Data handling clarity | 2% | Privacy practices are clear. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 1% | Protections are described. |
Romania (RO)
Finravia evaluates credit cards in Romania by focusing on total-cost clarity and fee visibility that affects everyday outcomes such as FX and cash withdrawals. Romania’s legislative portal describes DAE as the total cost expressed as an annual percentage of the total value of the credit and states it helps compare offers. Dispute escalation visibility is treated as measurable because CSALB states its procedures are free of charge for consumers.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Cost disclosure clarity (DAE framing where applicable, APR equivalent) | 18% | Cost is explained in a comparable way for typical use. |
| Fee transparency (annual, FX, cash, late, replacement) | 26% | Fees and triggers are explicit and complete. |
| Interest-free period mechanics (if offered) | 12% | Conditions are clear and consistent. |
| Contract and document accessibility | 12% | Terms and tariffs are easy to access. |
| Rewards value measurability | 10% | Rewards are measurable and limitations are clear. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity (including CSALB visibility) | 12% | Escalation route is visible and accurate. |
| Data handling clarity | 6% | Data collection scope and rights are clear. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 4% | Protections are described. |
Kazakhstan (KZ)
Finravia evaluates credit cards in Kazakhstan by prioritizing cost transparency, tariff accessibility, and verifiable fee disclosure before application steps. Where products use annualized cost disclosures, Finravia checks internal consistency with binding tariffs and terms, and prioritizes clear inclusion logic for all recurring and event-driven fees.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Effective annual cost disclosure clarity (where disclosed) | 18% | Cost is explained in a comparable annualized way and consistent with documents. |
| Fee transparency (annual/maintenance, FX, cash, late) | 28% | Fees and triggers are explicit and complete. |
| Tariff and contract accessibility | 14% | Tariffs and binding terms are easy to reach and consistent. |
| Interest-free period mechanics (if offered) | 10% | Conditions are clear and verifiable. |
| Legal standing signals | 10% | Provider basis can be validated through official sources. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity | 8% | Escalation route is visible and usable. |
| Data handling clarity | 8% | Data scope is proportionate and clearly explained. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 4% | Protections are described. |
Debit cards and attached accounts
This section describes how Finravia rates debit cards and their linked accounts per country, focusing on the real cost of holding and using the account, the accessibility of tariff documents, and practical consumer recourse. The tables below define the full 100% weight distribution per country.
Mexico (MX)
Finravia evaluates debit products in Mexico primarily by the real cost of holding and using the account, with emphasis on tariff accessibility and day-to-day transaction fees. When a provider bundles debit accounts with credit features, Finravia requires clear separation of debit-account tariffs from any credit pricing to preserve comparability, since CAT is defined as a standardized annualized financing cost concept for credit products.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Account maintenance cost transparency | 28% | Monthly fees and waiver conditions are clear and verifiable. |
| Everyday transaction costs (ATM, transfers, FX) | 28% | Costs are complete and triggers are clear. |
| Fee table and document accessibility | 16% | Official tariffs and terms are easy to access and current. |
| Access and usability (app controls, wallets, ATM network clarity) | 12% | Practical usability is clearly described. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity | 8% | Support and escalation route is visible and usable. |
| Data handling clarity | 5% | Data scope and rights are clear. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 3% | Card controls and alerts are described. |
Poland (PL)
Finravia evaluates debit products in Poland by emphasizing the true cost of everyday operations, tariff-table accessibility, and accountability for support and complaints. Where non-traditional providers are involved, warnings screening is applied as a risk signal because the KNF public warnings list contains information on notifications of suspected criminal offences submitted by the KNF.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Account maintenance cost transparency | 25% | Fees and waiver rules are clear and verifiable. |
| Everyday transaction costs (ATM, transfers, FX) | 30% | Costs are complete and understandable. |
| Tariff and document accessibility | 18% | Tariffs and terms are easy to access and current. |
| Access and usability | 12% | App features and card controls are clearly described. |
| Legal standing and warnings screening impact | 7% | Standing is verifiable; warning-list risk materially reduces score. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity | 5% | Escalation route is visible and usable. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 3% | Protections are described. |
Sweden (SE)
Finravia evaluates debit products in Sweden by focusing on tariff transparency and the real cost of everyday use, while treating dispute-resolution clarity as measurable because ARN filings require a 150 SEK application fee. The methodology prioritizes whether key pricing information can be verified without navigating multiple layers of documents.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Account maintenance cost transparency | 24% | Fees and waiver conditions are clear. |
| Everyday transaction costs (ATM, transfers, FX) | 30% | Costs and triggers are explicit. |
| Tariff and document accessibility | 18% | Tariffs and terms are easy to access and current. |
| Access and usability | 12% | Controls and wallet support are clear. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity (including ARN visibility) | 10% | Escalation route is visible and accurately described. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 4% | Protections are described. |
| Data handling clarity | 2% | Privacy practices are clear. |
Romania (RO)
Finravia evaluates debit products in Romania by emphasizing tariff clarity and the full cost of common operations, and it treats the visibility of dispute-resolution options as measurable because CSALB states procedures are free of charge for consumers. The methodology checks whether account-linked services add costs that are not clearly visible in the main tariff presentation.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Account maintenance cost transparency | 25% | Fees and waiver conditions are clear. |
| Everyday transaction costs (ATM, transfers, FX) | 30% | Costs and triggers are explicit. |
| Tariff and document accessibility | 18% | Tariffs and terms are easy to access and current. |
| Access and usability | 12% | Controls and wallet support are clear. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity (including CSALB visibility) | 10% | Escalation route is visible and accurate. |
| Data handling clarity | 3% | Data scope and rights are clear. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 2% | Protections are described. |
Kazakhstan (KZ)
Finravia evaluates debit products in Kazakhstan by prioritizing tariff accessibility, everyday transaction costs, and proportional data collection. When a debit product is bundled with credit features, Finravia requires clear separation of debit-account tariffs from any credit pricing and treats mixed or ambiguous disclosure as a major downgrade.
| Criterion | Weight | What you score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Account maintenance cost transparency | 26% | Monthly fees and waiver conditions are clear and verifiable. |
| Everyday transaction costs (ATM, transfers, FX) | 30% | Costs and triggers are explicit and complete. |
| Tariff and document accessibility | 18% | Tariffs and terms are easy to access and current. |
| Access and usability | 12% | Controls and wallet support are clear. |
| Data handling clarity | 8% | Data scope is proportionate and clearly explained. |
| Complaints and escalation clarity | 4% | Escalation route is visible and usable. |
| Security and fraud-prevention controls | 2% | Protections are described. |
How results are shown on product pages
Each Finravia product page is designed to make the offer comparable before the user takes any irreversible step. The page highlights the country’s primary all-in cost indicator when it applies to the product type, presents a complete fee picture or a direct path to the provider’s official tariff document, and explains the key eligibility constraints that determine whether the advertised terms can realistically apply. The page also includes a clear complaints route and escalation information relevant to the country so that users can understand their options if a dispute arises.
Finravia avoids “best” claims that could be misleading without context. When pages use comparative labels, they are descriptive and evidence-based, such as lowest disclosed total cost by the local cost metric, simplest fee structure, or strong escalation clarity. Each label maps back to the scoring criteria used in the tables for that product category and country, so users can see exactly what the label means and what information supports it.