ClubFunding is the largest real estate crowdfunding platform in France: more than 1,400 projects financed since 2015, for a cumulative volume of roughly 1.6 billion euros. In 2026 it is also one of the platforms investors argue about the most: nearly one project in three is running more than six months late. Should you stay away, or is the alarm overblown? Both short answers circulate everywhere, and both are wrong.
Here is our independent review, updated June 2026, based on public indicators, data from our own scoring engine and the ClubFunding projects we have analysed. CrowdPickr receives no compensation from ClubFunding: no affiliate links, no promo codes.
ClubFunding was founded in 2015 by David Peronnin and David El Nouchi. The platform specialises in bond financing for real estate operations: property development, dealer-renovator deals and, more recently, a growing number of projects abroad (notably Spain). In a decade it has become the French market leader by volume.
The group changed scale in 2023 with a 125 million euro fundraising from Florac Investissements, Peninsula Capital, EMZ Partners and Bpifrance. That matters for one specific reason: ClubFunding the platform is not in financial trouble. The borrowers it financed are, and that distinction is essential to understand everything that follows.
On regulation, ClubFunding holds the PSFP licence (European Crowdfunding Service Provider) issued under EU Regulation 2020/1503, the most demanding status available. On this criterion our scoring gives it full marks: 8/8.
This is the painful subject, so let's look at the exact numbers. As of 31 May 2026, according to the independent tracker argent-et-salaire.com, ClubFunding shows a more-than-six-months delay rate of 31.36%. Concretely: out of 1,434 financed projects, 338 have exceeded their contractual maturity by more than six months. Before 2023 that rate stayed below 5%. The French property development crisis (construction costs, interest rates, a frozen market) hit the entire 2021-2022 vintage of projects, and ClubFunding, as the volume leader, mechanically carries a large share of it.
Two elements qualify this picture. First, definitive losses remain near zero: between 0 and 0.1% of capital depending on the definition used. A delay is not a loss: the large majority of late projects do end up repaying, with extra interest accrued during the extension. Second, the rate seems to be stabilising: 32.2% at the end of March 2026, 31.4% at the end of May. It is too early to call it a durable improvement, but the continuous deterioration of 2024-2025 appears to have stopped.
What this means for you is simple: on ClubFunding, the dominant risk today is not losing your capital, it is having it locked up. If you invest in a 12-month project, you must be able to wait 24 or 30 months without endangering your finances. That is exactly what criterion A2 of our grid measures, and it is what costs the platform the most points: 3.5/6.
A 31% delay rate sounds enormous in isolation. Put in market context, the picture changes:
| Platform | Delay rate >6 months | Definitive losses | Data as of |
|---|---|---|---|
| ClubFunding | 31.36% | ≈ 0% | 31 May 2026 |
| Homunity | 35.10% | ≈ 0% | 30 April 2026 |
| Anaxago | 28.47% | not disclosed | 31 May 2026 |
| La Première Brique | 8.67% | ≈ 0% | 31 May 2026 |
Source: independent tracker argent-et-salaire.com, retrieved 12 June 2026. Definitive losses mean capital actually lost, not delays.
ClubFunding therefore sits in the middle of the pack among large property development platforms, behind La Première Brique (which focuses on shorter, smaller projects, limiting direct comparison). For a full market analysis, see our platform delay rate barometer.
ClubFunding's Trustpilot rating remains high (4.4/5 in May 2026), but recent reviews are markedly more critical than the historical average, and investor forums have turned harsh. Three complaints come up consistently:
Communication on troubled projects. Investors find progress updates too rare, too optimistic, or worded to downplay problems. It is the most frequent criticism and, in our view, the most justified one: transparency during a crisis is precisely what separates the best platforms from the rest.
Collateral handling on some deals. Cases of contested or allegedly insufficient security packages have been reported publicly by investors on a few projects. We cannot verify every individual case, but the recurrence of the topic justifies reading each project's documentation carefully before investing, especially the exact nature of the securities (first-rank mortgage, guarantee, pledge) and their rank.
Late penalties seen as too soft. Some investors believe the conditions applied to late borrowers do not push them hard enough to repay quickly.
Facing the crisis, the platform has set up support and restructuring measures for struggling borrowers. Whether they actually work will show in the numbers over the coming quarters.
ClubFunding mainly offers bonds financing development and dealer-renovator operations. In June 2026, the projects in preparation on the platform display target rates of 11 to 12% per year over 6 to 24 months, at the high end of the market. Amounts raised range from a few hundred thousand euros to several million, with a growing share of Spanish deals.
A useful reminder: a high headline rate is never free. It pays for risk, and project-by-project selection matters more than the platform average. That is the whole point of our 12-criteria scoring methodology.
Our engine analyses ClubFunding projects as soon as they are announced, from the official documents (presentation deck, bond issuance contract, KIIS). Here are the latest scores:
| Project | CrowdPickr score | Status |
|---|---|---|
| San Angel (hotel, Asturias) | 68/100 | Open |
| La Française retail park, Coquelles (62) | 62/100 | Open |
| Voltaire Saint-Ouen (93) | 52/100 | Open |
| MVMB Vidauban (83) | 56.5/100 | Funded |
The spread between these scores illustrates our central point: on the same platform, quality varies widely from one deal to the next. See all ClubFunding projects analysed by CrowdPickr.
ClubFunding can suit investors who understand the risk-return profile of property development, who select projects deal by deal, and whose liquidity horizon is flexible. It does not suit those who need their capital back on a fixed date, nor those who would invest on the leader's reputation without reading the documentation.
ClubFunding is not a platform to avoid: impeccable PSFP licence, financially solid structure, near-zero definitive losses despite the worst crisis the sector has ever faced. But investing with the market leader in 2026 demands clear eyes: one project in three is late, communication during difficulties draws criticism, and the liquidity of your capital is not guaranteed at the announced maturities. Our recommendation: select project by project, verify the actual securities in the documentation, cap ClubFunding's share of your allocation, and only invest money you will not need for two to three years.