← Fundnode · Learn

Funder comparison · 2026

Credibly vs Fundamental Capital — who wins for what.

Both fund small businesses. They solve different problems. Here's the honest side-by-side, then five use-case verdicts so you don't have to guess.

By Fundnode Editorial7 min read

The specs

CrediblyFundamental Capital
Product typeMulti-productMCA
Amount range$5K – $600K$5K – $300K
Cost (factor / APR)Factor 1.11+ (MCA); APR varies (term)Factor 1.22 – 1.45
Speed to fundAs fast as 4 hours24 – 48 hours
Min time in business6 months6 months
Min monthly revenue$15,000$15,000
Min credit score550+525+
Products
  • MCA
  • Working capital LOC
  • Short-term term loan
  • MCA (1st, 2nd position)

Verdicts by use case

  • Clean A-paper merchant — Winner: Credibly. Credibly's A-paper factor band (1.11 – 1.25) and 4-hour funding beats Fundamental Capital's 1.22 – 1.45 range outright. Fundamental's pricing reflects B/C-paper distribution math with broker commission baked into factor; A-paper files placed there overpay materially.
  • B/C-paper file with FICO 525 – 575 and short trading history — Winner: Fundamental Capital. Fundamental Capital's broker-channel underwriting accepts B/C-paper files at FICO 525+. Credibly's 550+ floor and first-position preference declines most stacked sub-550 files. For impaired-credit or short-trading-history files, Fundamental is in the cascade.
  • Larger deal size ($300K+) — Winner: Credibly. Credibly underwrites up to $600K with consistent execution. Fundamental Capital caps at $300K and consistency above $150K limited given small balance sheet. For larger deals, Credibly is the only realistic option in this pair.
  • Fastest funding on clean files — Winner: Credibly. Credibly funds in as fast as 4 hours via API V2 + Cloudsquare (March 2026). Fundamental funds in 24 – 48 hours. For genuine same-day cash needs, Credibly is meaningfully faster.
  • Multi-position MCA stack (2nd position) — Winner: Fundamental Capital. Fundamental Capital underwrites 2nd-position MCA as a deliberate product. Credibly is first-position-preferred. For files with one existing position needing additional capital, Fundamental is in the cascade where Credibly typically isn't.

The honest takeaway

Credibly and Fundamental Capital solve overlapping but distinct problems. The right choice depends on three things you already know about your business: how fast you need the money, how long you've been operating, and whether the capital need is one-time or recurring.

Frequently asked questions

Fundamental Capital vs Fundamental Business Loans — same company?
No, different funders despite the similar names. Fundamental Capital is a smaller boutique MCA shop focused on B/C-paper 1st and 2nd position at $5K – $300K. Fundamental Business Loans is a larger multi-product broker-friendly shop with MCA, term, and equipment at $10K – $500K. The naming overlap creates confusion; ISOs sometimes route deals to the wrong entity. Check the legal entity name on your contract before signing — underwriting, balance sheet, and reconciliation policy differ meaningfully between the two.
Why would my ISO recommend Fundamental Capital over Credibly?
Three possible reasons. First (legitimate): your file is genuine B/C-paper that Credibly will decline; Fundamental's broker-channel underwriting accepts B/C-paper Credibly's A-paper preference filters out. Second (legitimate): your file has an existing first position needing a second; Credibly won't fund behind, Fundamental will. Third (problematic): your ISO captures higher commission at Fundamental than Credibly on similar files, and presents Fundamental as the only option. Always push for at least one A-paper quote before accepting B-paper pricing — if Credibly will fund your file, the cost savings are substantial.
How much smaller is Fundamental Capital than the major MCA shops?
Substantially. Fundamental Capital operates as a boutique with annual originations estimated in the $50M – $150M range. By contrast Credibly has deployed $3B+ cumulatively, OnDeck $14B+, Strategic/Kapitus $5B+. Smaller balance sheet means: (1) funding consistency on larger deals less reliable; (2) reconciliation requests have less margin to absorb; (3) institutional counterparty risk higher in a downturn. For deals under $100K with clean execution requirements, boutique scale isn't necessarily a problem; for deals above $150K or for merchants concerned about counterparty stability, larger funders are the safer choice.