The big reason is that the different scores come out of the models. That may seem counter-intuitive, but models tend to be very tied to specific populations in

The big reason is that the different scores come out of the models. That may seem counter-intuitive, but models tend to be very tied to specific populations in specific ranges, and stability is often as valuable as predictability. Different model behavior - up or down - means that financial institutions have to retest their entire strategy to make sure that it doesn't screw up the segmentation and models that they have layered on top of various credit scores. This is not a trivial or short process - It's pretty common to see 6 month and 12 month champion/challenger tests. Even then, assuming that there is not a significant lift in predictability (unlikely as the FICO score is good at what it does) or addressability (do people who previously had a thin file now have enough data to make a decision) then you also end up looking and saying that it's not worth the changes to move to a newer score. Also, scores are incredibly regulated. Proving that the model you layer on top of the FICO score doesn't have a disparate impact (something standing in as a proxy to a protected bit of information such as ethnicity) is expensive. VantageScore doesn't really change this; it's a copycat of the FICO score that came about because the credit unions don't like having the score aspect out of their control and would rather people just pay them instead of an independent third party instead. The only thing that really would change the score in any way is additional data - but social media mining for scores is not acceptable outside of China (where their score predicts compliance with government not credit risk).