Real estate crowdfunding vs co-investment: who actually does the deal

"Real estate crowdfunding" and "co-investment" are often used as if they meant the same thing. They don't. In both cases you put money into a property deal you don't run yourself, with a ticket smaller than buying a whole flat. But the question that really separates the two models is a different one: who actually does the deal? Who finds the property, buys it, renovates it and sells it — and who wins or loses if it goes wrong? This article answers that with verifiable facts and without running anyone down: crowdfunding platforms are a legal, supervised channel. They simply do something else.

Real estate crowdfunding is an intermediation service: a platform connects a developer who needs funding for a project with many investors contributing small amounts. Since November 2021 it has been governed by Regulation (EU) 2020/1503, and in Spain platforms must be authorised and supervised by the CNMV (the securities regulator) as crowdfunding service providers.

That framework gives retail investors real protections: an entry knowledge test, a reinforced warning when an investment exceeds €1,000 or 5% of their net worth, a four-day reflection period and a standardised key information sheet for each project. We cover them in how to choose a platform to invest in property.

What matters here is who plays which role. The platform does not own the project. Its job is to select third-party projects, list them, pool the money and pass it on. The developer is the one who finds the land or building, buys it, hires the works and sells. As a rule, the platform:

• Does not source the asset: a developer brings a deal that already exists.
• Does not buy or renovate the property: ownership and execution belong to the developer.
• Does not run the business plan: timing, permits, works and sale depend on the developer.
• Usually puts no capital of its own into the project: the Regulation's conflict-of-interest rules (Art. 8) specifically restrict platforms from taking part in the offers they list.
• Gets paid for intermediating, usually through fees charged to the developer for raising the money and, depending on the case, fees charged to investors.

In co-investment, the company offering you the deal is the one doing it. There is no third-party developer behind it: the same company finds the property, analyses it, buys it, carries out the renovation and sells it, and opens participation to a small group of investors who come into that specific deal, alongside it and with the same risk.

That is Invernova's model. It is not crowdfunding: we are not an authorised crowdfunding service provider, we make no offers to the general public and we do not stand between a developer and your savings. Every deal is ours from start to finish, is formalised through a private contract, and we invest our own capital in all of them. That is why the ticket is high (from €25,000) and the group of co-investors small: the model is designed for investors who want few deals and to understand each one in depth. See real estate co-investment for details.

No model removes property risk: works overrun, markets fall, sales take longer. What changes is where the risk sits and who answers for it. With crowdfunding, because of how intermediation works, three points deserve a close look.

1. Alignment of interests

If whoever brings you the opportunity is paid for raising the money, their main income arrives when the round closes, not when the project returns your capital. That doesn't mean they will choose badly, but the incentives are not the same as those of someone who loses their own money if the deal fails. Always ask: how much of their own capital does the person proposing this have in it?

2. Dependence on a third-party developer

In crowdfunding, the quality of your investment depends above all on the developer: its solvency, experience and ability to execute. The platform vets it before listing the project, but cannot replace it. If the developer runs late or into trouble, the platform manages the claim; it cannot finish the building for them. That is why the project's security and LTV matter so much — see what LTV is.

3. Fees that don't depend on the outcome

A significant part of a platform's income is usually earned whether the deal goes well or not: for structuring, raising or managing. In co-investment, the manager earns mainly through its share of the profit. This is not a moral judgement; it is how the model works, and worth knowing before comparing returns.

Alignment is not declared; it is shown with results. As of 4 October 2026, the Invernova track record publishes, deal by deal:

The last row matters as much as the others: a record without a single setback is not credible, and several deals took longer than planned. These are past figures: they do not guarantee the result of the next deal.

Neither model is better in the abstract. They suit different profiles:

• Real estate crowdfunding fits if you want to start with small amounts, spread your money over many projects and value the European framework's protections for non-sophisticated investors.
• Co-investment fits if you have established investable wealth, can commit €25,000 or more to one deal without needing that money for a year or two, prefer a few deals you understand well, and want whoever proposes the deal to put their own capital at risk alongside yours.
• If in doubt, start with the track record: ask anyone — us included — for the result of every closed deal, not just the best ones.