MCA Offer Comparison: A Practical Workflow for Brokers and Funders
A practical MCA offer comparison workflow for normalizing terms, reviewing tradeoffs, recording decisions, and handing the selected offer into stipulation management.
Record every offer in the same format
Start with a consistent set of fields for each approval: funder, approved amount, purchase amount or total payback, payment amount, payment frequency, estimated term or remittance structure, origination or other disclosed fees, net proceeds, position, expiration or review date, and current status. Keep the original approval message or document attached to the record. Standard fields make the differences visible without asking a rep to interpret a fresh email thread every time the merchant calls.
Separate stated terms from calculated comparisons
Preserve the terms exactly as the funder provided them, then label any values your team calculates for comparison. For example, net proceeds may depend on fees or payoff amounts, and an estimated duration may depend on payment frequency and the structure of the product. Do not present an internal calculation as a term promised by the funder. If a value is unclear, flag it for confirmation instead of filling the gap with an assumption.
Compare the whole structure, not one headline number
The largest approval is not always the most workable option. Review payment size and frequency, net proceeds, total obligation, position, payoff requirements, approval timing, and the conditions that still have to be satisfied. The useful question is how each structure fits the merchant’s request and operating situation, not which row wins on a single field.
Resolve conflicts before presenting the options
Check that business names, ownership details, requested amounts, existing positions, and payoff assumptions match across the file and the approvals. Confirm whether an offer is still active and whether updated documents or a call with the funder is required. Route discrepancies to a named person. A clean comparison loses its value if one option relies on stale information or conditions the team has not verified.
Give the merchant a clear, accurate summary
Present the relevant choices in plain language and keep the source terms available for reference. Explain the meaningful differences, identify items that remain subject to confirmation, and avoid turning an approval into a guarantee of funding. Record which options were shared, when the conversation happened, the questions raised, and the next action so another teammate can continue the deal without reconstructing the call.
Record the selection and close the alternatives
When the merchant chooses a path, mark the selected offer and record the decision date, owner, and next step. Give the other offers a clear outcome such as declined by merchant, replaced, expired, or held as an alternative. Do not delete them. That history helps the team understand what was available, prevents an old approval from being presented later by mistake, and keeps lender follow-up tied to the actual decision.
Hand the selected offer into stipulation management
Create the stipulation checklist from the selected approval rather than from a generic template or a competing offer. Carry forward the confirmed terms, open conditions, responsible owner, timing, and merchant communication notes. If the approval changes, preserve the prior version, update the comparison, and confirm the selection again before restarting document requests. The handoff should leave operations with one current offer and one unambiguous next action.