The specs
OnDeck ISO PortalRapid Finance ISO Portal
Product typeMulti-productMulti-product
Amount range$5K – $400K (term); $6K – $200K (LOC)$5K – $1M (across products)
Cost (factor / APR)Term APR 27%+; LOC APR 30%+Up to 5% of financing per public partner page; APR varies
Speed to fundSame-day for approved files; portal submission-to-offer 1 – 2 daysSame-day to 3 days; portal submission-to-offer 1 – 3 days
Min time in business12 months12 months
Min monthly revenue$8,000$10,000
Min credit score600+600+
Products
- Term loan
- LOC
- MCA
- Term loan
- LOC
- Embedded lending
Verdicts by use case
- Independent ISO with 2+ years, $1M+/mo volume seeking cheapest merchant cost — Winner: OnDeck ISO Portal. OnDeck term loan APR (27%+) on A-paper merchants is typically cheaper than Rapid Finance MCA factor pricing on the same file. For established ISOs whose book includes A-paper merchants OnDeck direct is structural primary on merchant-cost. Rapid Finance's MCA pricing is competitive but the commission cap weakens ISO economics.
- Vertical SaaS company embedding financing inside its product — Winner: Rapid Finance ISO Portal. Rapid Finance's embedded-lending narrative is structurally the right fit for a vertical SaaS partnership (industry-specific business management software offering financing in-product). OnDeck doesn't position for SaaS-platform embedded financing the way Rapid Finance does.
- Largest deal size capability ($400K – $1M) — Winner: Rapid Finance ISO Portal. Rapid Finance's $1M cap exceeds OnDeck's $400K term loan cap. For deals $400K – $1M Rapid Finance is the structural option in this 2-way.
- Direct brand recognition that shortens merchant close cycles — Winner: OnDeck ISO Portal. OnDeck's brand recognition among US small businesses is materially higher than Rapid Finance — broker-presented OnDeck offers typically close faster because the merchant recognizes the brand without research. Rapid Finance has lower direct-merchant brand recall.
- Newer ISO without volume history or SaaS distribution — Winner: Tie. Neither portal is realistically reachable for a brand-new independent ISO — OnDeck requires 2+ years and $1M+/mo volume, Rapid Finance's primary channel is SaaS-platform partnerships rather than independent broker submissions. For new ISOs neither is structural primary; route to Credibly direct (no volume bar), Greenbox (Priority 1 for new ISOs), or Accord (open ISO program) instead.
The honest takeaway
OnDeck ISO Portal and Rapid Finance ISO Portal 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
- Why are both OnDeck and Rapid Finance structurally hard for independent ISOs in 2026?
- Both funders have built distribution models that favor specific partner profiles rather than open independent-ISO submissions. OnDeck targets high-volume established broker shops (2+ years in industry, $1M+/mo origination volume per public broker program materials) — direct-merchant remains OnDeck's primary acquisition channel. Rapid Finance has invested heavily in vertical SaaS embedded-lending partnerships (industry-specific business management software offering Rapid Finance financing in-product) — the published 5% partner commission cap reflects platform-partner economics rather than independent-ISO broker economics. As of 2026-06-28 the realistic implication for independent ISOs: place files with funders that operate open direct ISO portals with documented commission tiers and reachable onboarding paths — Credibly (API V2 + Cloudsquare, no volume bar), Greenbox (Priority 1 status for new ISOs, up to 19% commission), Accord (up to 15% with 100% renewal commission), Kapitus (established ISO program), Libertas Funding (2nd position specialist with ISO portal). OnDeck and Rapid Finance both work for the specific ISO profiles they target but aren't realistic primary cascades for newer or mid-volume independent broker shops.
- Does Rapid Finance's embedded-lending channel work for traditional ISOs at all?
- Yes, but with structurally weaker economics than direct ISO portals at competing funders. Independent ISOs without a vertical SaaS distribution play can submit directly to Rapid Finance via the broker channel — the published 5% commission cap applies and the underwriting box (12+ months TIB, 600+ FICO, $10K+/mo revenue) is standard. The realistic outcome: Rapid Finance approves the file, the merchant funds, the ISO earns approximately 5% commission — vs Greenbox's published 19% or Accord's 15% on similar files. For ISOs whose primary value-add is the broker submission rather than a SaaS distribution channel, the commission differential makes Rapid Finance structurally a secondary submission rather than a primary cascade target. The realistic 2026 placement: route the file to Greenbox or Accord first for commission economics; submit to Rapid Finance as a backup if the primary funders decline on paper grade or industry mix.
- Which is right for a $250K term loan on a 24-month-TIB Texas construction subcontractor ($60K/mo, 640 FICO)?
- OnDeck term loan is structural primary for this file IF the ISO has direct OnDeck portal access (2+ years / $1M+/mo volume). The file qualifies cleanly for OnDeck (24 months exceeds 12-month floor, 640 FICO exceeds 600 floor, $60K/mo exceeds $8K floor) and OnDeck's term loan APR (27 – 33% on this file) is structurally cheaper than the MCA alternatives over a 24 – 36 month payback. Expected OnDeck pricing: APR 28 – 32% on $250K, total cost over 24 months approximately $325K – $340K (vs $325K – $355K on a 1.30 – 1.42 factor MCA from Rapid Finance on the same file). Rapid Finance would also approve the file (likely MCA at factor 1.28 – 1.38 or term at APR 30 – 38%) with the larger $1M deal cap not relevant at $250K. For ISOs without OnDeck direct access the realistic cascade: route to Credibly LOC or term first (cheaper APR than Rapid Finance for this file profile), then Rapid Finance as the alternative direct submission. For construction-specific underwriting depth Fora Financial and Forward Financing (outside this 2-way) are also strong primaries on construction subs.