LANDE vs InSoil
LANDE and InSoil are two European platforms for agricultural loans. We currently prefer LANDE, because it has a simpler structure and shows a slightly more stable track record. InSoil sometimes offers higher gross returns and increasingly focuses on green loans and carbon credit projects.
Please note: investing through these online platforms involves risks. You may lose part or all of your investment.
Contents:
LANDE vs InSoil
Both LANDE and InSoil are European crowdfunding platforms for secured agricultural business loans. Farmers borrow money for machinery, land, inventory such as seeds, or working capital. InSoil is also increasingly focused on sustainable farming and projects linked to carbon credits.
Both LANDE and InSoil can notify you about new projects by email, but you can also use an auto-invest function. You can set your preferred interest rates, loan terms, maximum LTV and investment amount per project. Both platforms also offer a secondary market.
Invest via Mintos, with 11.62% average return, or Debitum focused on business loans. Both are MiFID-licensed and top-rated by Investmentplatforms.eu. Investing involves risks. You may lose your investment.
LANDE
LANDE is a fairly traditional crowdfunding platform focused on secured agricultural loans from Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Poland. The platform mainly focuses on predictable interest income. Average returns are currently around 11.2 percent.
Its main difference with real estate crowdfunding platforms is that LANDE focuses entirely on the agricultural sector. The platform often works with low LTV ratios of around 40 to 50 percent. It has also become stricter: since 2024 it no longer accepts crops or livestock as collateral, which has further improved portfolio quality.
InSoil
InSoil operates across a larger region. Many agricultural loans come from Lithuania, but the platform also offers projects from Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia and Portugal. It was previously active in Ukraine and Romania as well. Besides standard agricultural loans, InSoil focuses on sustainable farming and carbon-related projects.
With green loans, returns can partly depend on the sale of carbon credits. Expected returns are sometimes higher, but the outcome depends on future carbon credit prices. This creates additional uncertainty around final returns.
Usability
The dashboard of LANDE is clear and functional. You can immediately see the interest rate, available collateral and LTV ratio. Statistics about defaults and repayments are also presented in detail.
The dashboard of InSoil looks similar at first glance, but because of the broader range of projects it is important to pay attention to icons and conditions. Percentages are often only projections and not fixed interest rates. As a result, comparing projects can take more time.
Two-factor authentication
One notable point about InSoil is that it uses SMS verification for login authentication. These messages can sometimes arrive slowly or not arrive at all. No alternative 2FA method is offered. With LANDE, you can either use a normal login or enable 2FA through tools such as Google Authenticator.
Returns and risks
Currently, LANDE offers gross interest rates of around 11 percent. Results appear relatively stable so far, although agriculture remains a risky sector. Poor harvests, falling food prices or international developments can directly affect farmers’ repayment capacity.
In the countries where the platform operates, agriculture is an important part of the economy, which is why governments have intervened in the past when fuel prices rose sharply, for example. This does not remove the risks, but it may help keep the sector more stable.
With InSoil, expected returns are sometimes higher, especially for green loans and carbon credit projects. However, the business model depends not only on the farmer’s performance, but also on regulation, market prices and carbon credit valuations. Returns are therefore less predictable.
Invest via Mintos, with 11.62% average return, or Debitum focused on business loans. Both are MiFID-licensed and top-rated by Investmentplatforms.eu. Investing involves risks. You may lose your investment.
Late payments and defaults
Both platforms publish statistics about returns, defaults and repayments, but they present this information differently. LANDE shows overdue loans and defaults relatively transparently in separate categories. InSoil is harder to compare directly because it focuses on defaults and recovery figures instead of overdue payments.
Both platforms have relatively high levels of problematic loans. However, this risk is partly reflected in the higher interest rates.
Reliability and regulation
The investments themselves carry significant risks, but the companies behind the platforms appear reliable. Both hold a European crowdfunding licence (ECSP). LANDE is supervised by the central bank of Latvia. InSoil operates under supervision in Lithuania.
Both platforms are still relatively small compared to larger P2P platforms or crowdfunding platforms, but volumes are growing quickly and both companies are professionalising rapidly. InSoil currently has slightly larger volumes and a broader investor reach.
Both platforms were founded around 2020 and have now built a solid track record. InSoil was originally launched as HeavyFinance and rebranded to InSoil in 2025. Both platforms now have more than 10,000 registered investors. At LANDE, investors have an average investment size of more than 5,000 euro, while at InSoil the average is around 10,300 euro.
Conclusion
Both platforms offer interesting investment opportunities and we actively use both ourselves. To limit the risks of agricultural lending, we mainly see them as part of a broader investment portfolio.
At the moment, we have a slight preference for LANDE. The platform is easier to understand and the returns appear more predictable, with a business model mainly based on traditional secured agricultural loans.
We mainly see InSoil as interesting for investors specifically looking for exposure to sustainable farming and carbon credits. Potential returns can sometimes be higher, but the platform is also more dependent on developments in carbon credit markets and regulation.
