Finravia rating methodology for financial products

Updated: 01.06.2026.

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 we use the provider’s binding documents such as fee schedules, terms and conditions, and pre-contractual disclosures. Only then do we use reputable secondary references 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. We then run 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. For Mexico, Finravia uses CAT inside a broader comparable annual cost framework when a product includes financing, credit, deferred payments, or charges linked to the use of borrowed money.

How we define comparable annual cost

Finravia uses comparable annual cost to show a common cost indicator when a product includes financing, credit, deferred payments, or charges linked to the use of borrowed money. When the provider publishes a clear and current official annual cost metric, Finravia uses that disclosed figure as the primary reference. In Mexico, this is usually the published CAT when it is available, current and comparable.

When the provider does not publish a single comparable CAT or annual cost metric, Finravia may calculate an editorial estimate using public data. The estimate can use amount, term, rate, mandatory charges, financing fees, or a representative total repayment example. This calculation helps users compare products under one annual logic, but it does not replace the contractual CAT, the provider’s final offer, or the official disclosure shown during application.

On each product page, Finravia may indicate whether the annual cost comes from a published official metric or from an editorial estimate based on public data. If a product does not include comparable financing, Finravia uses other cost indicators such as maintenance fees, annual fees, transaction charges, foreign-use fees, or published tariffs.

How scores are calculated from 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 comparable annual cost as the main cost anchor. This indicator uses published CAT when the provider discloses it clearly and uses an editorial Finravia estimate when the provider does not publish a single comparable CAT. The goal is to help users understand the full repayment picture before committing to the product.

For Mexican loan pages, Finravia does not treat a monthly rate, daily rate, promotional rate, or first-loan rate as directly comparable by itself. Those figures can be shown as supporting cost details, but the comparison field should reflect annualized cost logic. This is why a product page may show published CAT for one provider and an estimated comparable annual cost for another provider.

Criterion	Weight	What you score from 1 to 5
Comparable annual cost disclosure quality	25%	The annual cost is clear, states whether it comes from published CAT or a Finravia estimate, and aligns with binding documents or public calculation inputs.
Total fees and penalty transparency	18%	All fees, mandatory add-ons, penalties, and triggers are stated upfront or linked to an official fee table.
Repayment schedule clarity	10%	Repayment structure, amortization logic, partial repayment, 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 and 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	5%	The privacy notice explains collection, data use, user rights, and contact routes 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 from 1 to 5
RRSO disclosure quality	22%	RRSO is shown clearly and not replaced by nominal-only messaging.
Fees and penalty transparency	18%	All charges are visible and understandable before application steps.
Legal standing and warnings screening impact	15%	Provider or intermediary can be validated and 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	10%	The user can identify who provides credit and who intermediates.
Repayment flexibility and early repayment rules	8%	Early and 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 from 1 to 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	10%	Escalation route is visible and 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 from 1 to 5
DAE disclosure quality	24%	DAE is presented clearly and consistently with documents.
Fee transparency and bundled add-ons	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	12%	Escalation route is visible and accurate, and 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, known as "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 from 1 to 5
"ГЭСВ" disclosure quality	25%	"ГЭСВ" is disclosed clearly and aligns with official calculation rules.
Fee transparency and inclusion logic	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 comparability when CAT is disclosed and applicable. If a card includes financing, deferred payments, or charges linked to borrowed money without a clear comparable CAT, Finravia may use comparable annual cost under the same editorial logic. The review also gives strong weight to fee triggers that materially change everyday costs.

For Mexican credit cards, CAT remains the preferred published metric when it is available and aligned with binding documents. Comparable annual cost becomes relevant only when a financing feature, installment feature, or deferred-payment structure needs a common annual reference and the provider does not disclose one clearly.

Criterion	Weight	What you score from 1 to 5
CAT and comparable annual cost disclosure quality	22%	CAT or comparable annual cost is visible, verifiable, and aligned with binding documents or public calculation inputs.
Fee transparency	24%	Annual fee, cash withdrawal, foreign-use charges, late fees, and triggers are explicit before application steps.
Interest-free period mechanics	14%	Conditions, timing, exclusions, and effects of not paying the full balance are clear and consistent.
Revolving interest and statement mechanics	12%	How interest accrues and how statements, cut-off dates, due dates, and minimum payments 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 from 1 to 5
Effective cost disclosure clarity	18%	Cost is explained in a comparable way, not nominal-only.
Fee transparency	26%	Annual, foreign-use, cash, late, and replacement fees are complete and triggers are clear.
Legal standing and warnings screening impact	14%	Standing is verifiable and KNF warnings materially reduce score or trigger exclusion.
Interest-free period mechanics	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 from 1 to 5
Effective rate disclosure quality and prominence	22%	Effective rate is prominent and supported by a representative example where expected.
Fee transparency	22%	Annual, foreign-use, cash, and late fees are complete and easy to verify.
Interest-free period mechanics	14%	Rules are clear and consistent.
Total-cost integrity	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	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 from 1 to 5
Cost disclosure clarity	18%	Cost is explained in a comparable way for typical use.
Fee transparency	26%	Annual, foreign-use, cash, late, and replacement fees and triggers are explicit and complete.
Interest-free period mechanics	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	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 from 1 to 5
Effective annual cost disclosure clarity	18%	Cost is explained in a comparable annualized way and consistent with documents.
Fee transparency	28%	Annual, maintenance, foreign-use, cash, and late 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	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 debit product does not include financing, Finravia does not use comparable annual cost and prioritizes maintenance, operation, ATM, transfer, and foreign-use charges. When a provider bundles debit accounts with credit features, Finravia requires clear separation of debit-account tariffs from any financing cost.

If a debit product includes overdraft, deferred payment, installment financing, or any credit-like feature, Finravia evaluates that feature separately from the debit account. The debit account is scored by tariffs and everyday costs. The financing feature is reviewed under the comparable annual cost logic when the cost can be annualized and compared.

Criterion	Weight	What you score from 1 to 5
Account maintenance cost transparency	28%	Monthly fees and waiver conditions are clear and verifiable.
Everyday transaction costs	28%	ATM, transfer, and foreign-use 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	12%	App controls, wallets, ATM network clarity, and practical usability are 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 from 1 to 5
Account maintenance cost transparency	25%	Fees and waiver rules are clear and verifiable.
Everyday transaction costs	30%	ATM, transfer, and foreign-use 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 and 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 from 1 to 5
Account maintenance cost transparency	24%	Fees and waiver conditions are clear.
Everyday transaction costs	30%	ATM, transfer, and foreign-use 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	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 from 1 to 5
Account maintenance cost transparency	25%	Fees and waiver conditions are clear.
Everyday transaction costs	30%	ATM, transfer, and foreign-use 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	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 from 1 to 5
Account maintenance cost transparency	26%	Monthly fees and waiver conditions are clear and verifiable.
Everyday transaction costs	30%	ATM, transfer, and foreign-use 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 cost indicator when it applies to the product type. For products with financing, this indicator may be shown as comparable annual cost, with a note explaining whether it comes from a published official metric or an editorial Finravia estimate.

The page also 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 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, strongest document transparency, 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.