Who We Are, and What We Are Not

What the Service Does

We operate a single request form that reaches a network of licensed lending Kapitus partners. One submission produces offers from multiple Kapitus partners rather than a single answer from a single company, which lets a borrower compare rather than accept.

The request range is $500 to $5,000. Below that, a provider payment plan or a short savings push usually serves people better. Above it, secured lending with different economics generally applies. The band we cover is where unsecured instalment credit does something genuinely useful: a known expense, a fixed schedule, and a payoff date you can name.

What We Do Not Do

• We do not lend money or fund loans.
• We do not underwrite, approve, or decline anyone.
• We do not set rates, terms, fees, or funding times.
• We do not service loans, collect payments, or report to credit bureaus.
• We do not charge borrowers anything, at any stage.

Everything on that list belongs to the lending partner that approves your Kapitus Funding funding request. When people contact us about a statement, a due date, or a payoff figure, the honest answer is that we have no access to the account and can only point them to the right company.

How We Are Paid

Participating lending partners compensate us when a Kapitus funding request is transmitted or funded. That is the entire revenue model, and it is why the service is free at the point of use.

It also creates an obvious tension, so we will name it. A business paid per transmitted request has an incentive to encourage requests. Our response is editorial rather than promissory: our guidance pages state when borrowing is the wrong answer, they name the free alternatives, our alternatives page profiles ten lenders who pay us nothing and carries no outbound buttons, and we quote cost in total dollars repaid rather than in the most flattering available format.

Compensation may influence which partners appear and in what order. It never changes the rate or terms a partner offers you, because those come from that partner's underwriting of your file.

Editorial Standards

Every article is written by a named member of the editorial team and reviewed before publication. Payment tables and cost comparisons are checked independently, because an arithmetic error in a piece about borrowing costs is not a small thing.

Rate figures used in examples are illustrative and labelled as such. We choose plausible figures rather than flattering ones. We do not publish invented customer testimonials — the reviews page reproduces feedback submitted through the service, including critical feedback. Where we reference an outside expert or institution, we describe published work and verifiable credentials accurately, and we do not attribute invented quotations to real people.

Contact and Company Details

We publish full contact details on every page of this site, because any operation unwilling to say where it is should not be handling your bank details.

Why the Comparison Model Exists

Consumer underwriting models differ more than most borrowers realise. One partner may weight recent income stability heavily and treat an old delinquency as largely spent; another may do the reverse. A borrower who reads as marginal to the first can read as perfectly acceptable to the second, with the same file on the same day.

That variation is the entire economic case for comparison. Applying separately to four lenders over three weeks produces four hard inquiries spread across a credit file, which scoring models read as someone applying everywhere — a genuinely predictive signal of distress. A single request that reaches several partners at once produces the same comparison without that pattern.

It also produces a spread. Offers returned against one request routinely differ by several percentage points and by hundreds of dollars in total cost. Borrowers who accept the first response they receive are, on average, leaving money on the table for no reason other than not having waited a few hours.

Who Uses This Service

The requests that reach us cluster around a small number of situations, and they are more mundane than the industry's marketing suggests. A vehicle that failed inspection. A deductible on care that could not wait. A deposit and first month due before a final paycheque cleared. Several revolving balances that have not moved in two years despite steady payments. An appliance that died in a house with children in it.

What those have in common is a known price and a defined end. That is the shape of situation this instrument suits. Where the Kapitus Funding funding request does not have that shape — where the amount is a guess, or the shortfall recurs monthly — our guidance says so, and the free alternatives are named on every relevant page.

Around a third of requests come from households whose income is not a fixed salary: contractors, gig workers, seasonal employees, small business owners. That is a group frequently underserved by conventional underwriting, and it is part of why a network with differing criteria produces better outcomes than a single lender would.

Our Standing Commitments

• No fee to the borrower, ever. Not for submitting, not for receiving offers, not for declining them.
• Cost quoted in dollars. Every example shows total repaid alongside the monthly payment.
• No manufactured urgency. No countdowns, no limited-time framing, nothing designed to shorten the gap between reading and applying.
• Criticism published. Our reviews page includes feedback from people who received no offer or one expensive offer.
• Free alternatives named. Nonprofit counselling, hardship programmes, provider payment plans and community assistance appear throughout, including where they cost us the referral.
• Contact details on every page. A phone number, an email address and a physical address.

The Tension in This Business Model

Kapitus is paid per transmitted or funded request. A reader who decides not to borrow generates nothing. That is a real conflict and pretending otherwise would undermine everything else on this page.

The way it is handled is structural rather than promissory. Editorial content sits outside commercial input, the alternatives page carries no referral links at all, cost is quoted in total dollars rather than in headline rates, and every product page names the circumstances in which that product is a bad idea. None of that eliminates the conflict; it constrains what can be done with it.

Readers can verify the constraint rather than trusting it. Compare the Kapitus responsible lending page against what a service optimising purely for conversions would publish, and compare the rate examples here against the headline figures used in the wider industry. The gap is the answer.