This paper tests the ability of the regulatory capital requirement to cover credit losses at default, as carried out by the economic (optimal) capital requirement in Tunisian banks. The common factor in borrowers that leads to a credit default is systematic risk. However, the sensitivity to these factors differs between borrowers. To this end, we derived two kinds of sensitivity to systematic risk: the first is recognised by the Basel Committee; the second is derived from an economic approach. Hence, we can observe the impact of sensitivity to systematic risk on capital requirements. Empirically, we studied a sample of 100 individual borrowers from a Tunisian deposit bank that had credit in January 2020. We estimated the default probability for each borrower and then simulated their systematic risk sensitivity using the Monte Carlo approach, and compared them with the regulatory risk sensitivity. Then, we tested their effects on the economic and regulatory capital requirements. The results indicate that regulatory capital overestimates economic capital. This is due to the overestimation of borrowers’ contagion in terms of default risk, as shown by the superiority of their regulatory sensitivity systematic risk compared to the simulated risk. This leads banks to devote more capital than is really necessary to reach the regulatory standard. Hence, there was an increase in capital costs and the possibility of an arbitrage opportunity.