Which funding products does this apply to?

Merchant Cash Advance, Working Capital, Term Loan, Business Line of Credit. Each has its own page listing the funders in this directory that offer it and what each one publishes about its terms.

Are the figures here quotes?

No. Every worked example is labelled illustrative and exists to show the arithmetic. What a particular lender charges is on that lender's page, where it publishes it at all.

The Find Me Funders research desk. Some drafting is AI-assisted, and every page that is says so at the top, including whether a person has checked its claims yet.

How do I know a figure here is right?

Where a page carries the green notice, its claims were checked against the sources listed at the end and a reviewer is named. Where it carries the amber one, nobody has verified it yet and you should confirm anything you plan to act on.

Are the examples real deals?

No. Every worked example is labelled illustrative and exists to show the arithmetic. What any particular lender charges is on that lender's page, where it publishes it.

Why do you never say what a typical rate is?

Because we cannot source it. A market average assembled from lenders who do not publish prices is a guess with a decimal point on it. Where a lender publishes a figure, we show that figure and say where it came from.

Is this financial or legal advice?

No. It is general information about how these products work. Outcomes depend on your contract and your state, and a lawyer or accountant licensed where you are is the person to ask about your situation.

Can I reuse this content?

Quote a paragraph with a link back. Do not republish whole articles.

What Business Lenders Actually Publish About Their Own Terms

What business lenders actually publish — and what they leave out

We read 35 lender product pages across ten funders. Four published a price.

By Find Me Funders editorial Reviewed by Find Me Funders editorial Updated 14 September 2026 974 words 4 min read

Drafted with AI assistance and checked by a person. Its factual claims were verified against the sources listed at the end, by Find Me Funders editorial.

The count

Across ten established US business funders we recorded 35 distinct lender-product records from their own websites. Four of those 35 carry a published price of any kind. The other 31 publish amounts, sometimes criteria, sometimes speed, and no cost.

That is not an accusation. Pricing on these products is genuinely risk-priced per deal, and a published number would be a range so wide it would tell you little. But it does mean the shopping process most business owners expect — compare the rates, pick the lowest — is not available, and any site that appears to offer it is filling the gap with something it made up.

What is usually published

Amount ranges, nearly always. Speed to fund, nearly always, though often with a condition attached in smaller type — approval before a cutoff time, a signed contract, a same-day wire rather than an ACH. Time in business and monthly revenue minimums, often. Credit score minimums, sometimes.

What is usually not

Price. Fees, mostly — three of our ten publish a fee figure. Restricted industries: one of ten publishes a list. State availability: one publishes an exclusion list, one publishes an inclusion list, the rest say nothing.

The contradictions are the interesting part

Six of the ten contradict themselves across their own pages. A credit minimum of 500 on the homepage, 600 in the FAQ, 660 on the product page and 'no minimum FICO' on the merchant cash advance page — that is one real lender, one site, read on one day. A minimum revenue of $17,000 a month in the FAQ and 'around $240,000 per year' on the product page, which is $20,000. A time in business of '6+ months' and 'more than 1 year' in two blocks on the same page.

Where a lender contradicts itself we leave the field blank and record the conflict. Picking one of the two and presenting it as fact would look tidier and would be a guess.

What a published number is actually promising

The figures that do get published are not wrong. They are just narrower than they read, and each one has a standard qualification sitting behind it.

An amount range.The top of the range is the largest deal the funder has written, or is prepared to write for its strongest file. It is not an indication of what you would be offered, and on most products the distance between the advertised maximum and the median approval is very large.

A speed claim."Same day" usually means same day after a completed file, a signed contract and a decision before a cutoff, with funds sent by wire rather than ACH. Every one of those conditions can move the date, and the one that moves it most often is the completed file — a stipulation requested on Tuesday afternoon resets the clock.

A minimum credit score.Almost always a floor for consideration rather than a threshold for approval, and frequently applied to the guarantor rather than the business. Meeting it means your file gets read.

A time in business minimum.A filter at the front of a workflow, applied to whichever start date that funder uses — formation, EIN, first deposit. The same business is different ages to different funders.

A monthly revenue minimum.Usually measured as true revenue after transfers and existing funding are stripped out, which is a smaller number than the total of your deposits.

A rate that is published.Read whether it is a factor rate, an interest rate, a "starting at" rate or a simple-interest figure, and whether the fee structure is stated alongside it. A rate published without a fee schedule is half a price.

Why the figures contradict each other

The contradictions described above are not usually deception. They are what happens to a page nobody owns.

A product page is written by a marketing team from a credit policy that was current at the time. The policy changes. The FAQ is updated by a different person, the merchant cash advance page by a third, and the homepage by whoever rebuilt the site. Nothing reconciles them, because no internal process requires it.

That has a practical consequence worth acting on. A published criterion tells you what the funder believed at the moment that page was written, which may be two years ago. It is a reason to make a call, not a fact to plan around, and where two pages disagree the useful move is to ask which one is current rather than to assume the friendlier figure applies.

Getting a real number instead

The information you need does not exist on any website, and it is obtainable in one conversation if you ask for the right things in writing.

The amount funded, and the amount landing in the account after every deduction at funding.
The total amount repayable.
The payment, the frequency and the expected number of payments.
The assumption behind that number of payments, and what happens to it if revenue comes in below the assumption.
Every fee that can be charged after funding: returned payment, servicing, modification, early termination.

Those five are the same five regardless of product, and they are what a disclosure statute requires in the handful of states that have one. Nothing stops you asking for them in a state that does not, and a funder unwilling to put them in an email has told you something no published grid ever could.

What to do with this

Treat published criteria as a filter for who is worth calling, not as a promise. Ask for the five figures listed in our factor rate guide in writing. And when a directory shows you a full grid with no gaps in it, ask where the missing numbers came from.