Fix & Flip Lender Guideline Comparison

I have completed
Filter the table
Any
Any

Slider stops at $5M; type a larger figure to filter above it.

The terms
Any
Any
Any
The record

All 13 lenders · lender name, A to Z

AccoLend

Max leverage
Min credit score650 first-time; 620 experienced
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026

Brookview Financial

Max leverage
Min credit scoremiddle score; under 660 case by case
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026

Easy Street Capital

Max leverage
Min credit scoreEasyFix program
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 3, 2026

GoKapital

Max leverage
Min credit scorenot published for this product
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026

Groundfloor

Max leverage
Min credit scoreplus gates that are not credit
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 3, 2026

Kiavi

Max leverage
Min credit scorenot on the product page
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 3, 2026

Lantzman Lending

Max leverage
Min credit scoreno floor published at all
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026

Lima One Capital

Max leverage
Min credit scorestated in the product FAQ
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 3, 2026

New Silver

Max leverage
Min credit scorewith 2+ completed projects
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 3, 2026

OfferMarket

Max leverage
Min credit scorehighest floor in the set
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026

Private Money Lenders (PML)

Max leverage
Min credit score660+ for every published tier
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026

We Lend

Max leverage
Min credit scoreno tax returns or bank statements
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026

ZINC Financial

Max leverage
Min credit scoreno floor and no ARV cap
Loan amount
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026

Every value is its own link. The hairline under a figure means a source sits behind it; tap or click opens the source, the quote and the date it was read.

What each column means
Max leverage.
The largest loan the lender will write, as a share of something. Which something differs — purchase plus rehab, or purchase price alone with rehab funded on top — so the basis is printed with every figure. Sorting this column lines up percentages rather than loans; a notice says so whenever that order is active.
ARV cap.
The ceiling on the loan as a share of the after-repair value: what the property is expected to be worth once the work is finished. Unlike maximum leverage this is one measurement across every lender that publishes it, so it orders cleanly.
Min credit score.
The lowest credit score the lender publishes. Nearly every one is conditional on something else, so the condition is printed with the number.
Rehab financed.
How much of the renovation budget the lender will fund. A percentage on its own can hide a dollar cap, so check the row detail.
Access channel.
Whether a borrower applies to the lender directly, only through a licensed broker, or either way.
Loan amount.
The smallest and largest loan the lender publishes for this product.
Last verified.
The oldest collection date on this row. Every figure carries its own date, and this is the least recent of them — so the row is at least this current, and no more.

312 figures were collected from primary sources only — each lender’s own site, product pages and FAQs — and read between 2026-09-03 and 2026-09-06. 166 are published by the lender; 146 are not. Time to Three criteria were collected and dropped as columns. Time to close, because the lenders here measure it six different ways. Draw type, which one of them publishes. Interest structure, which two publish — including the only lender anywhere in the set that lets the borrower choose the basis. All three are in every full record. What has changed since publication.

What the numbers don’t tell you

Experience doesn’t travel

Prior deals do not count the same way everywhere, and two of the broker-channel lenders make the point most clearly. RCN Capital counts prior flips only in the same state as the subject property, within the last three years — eight Ohio flips buying in Georgia underwrites as a zero-flip borrower. Rehab Financial Group runs the same idea the other way, counting one completed project with them as equal to three elsewhere. Among the lenders here, Lima One counts the sale or refinance of any investment property you held title on, not only a completed flip, which is a broader definition than the phrase “one exit required” suggests.

A low credit floor is paid for somewhere else

Anchor Loans, which we collected in full and no longer show, publishes a 620 floor — the joint lowest of everything we have read — and the heaviest experience requirement: easy pre-approval expects three or more successful flips in the last twelve months, and the best rates five or more in eighteen. Roc Capital, which is broker-channel and not a row here, runs the trade in the opposite direction — a 740-plus credit score substitutes for experience entirely, financing up to 90% of purchase for a first-time investor. Both structures are legitimate, and a borrower at 660 with no flips gets a very different answer from each. A credit column read on its own would put Anchor first and be wrong. Among the lenders still on this table the same trade runs through AccoLend, whose floor is 620 for experienced borrowers and 650 for first-timers — the only one anywhere in the collection that asks beginners for a better score than veterans.

“No money down” is not “no cash”

Rehab Financial Group finances 100% of purchase and 100% of rehab, the only genuine no-money-down structure collected. It also requires the greater of $15,000 or 25% of the rehab budget in documented liquidity, plus closing costs that may not be financed, plus roughly six months of carrying reserves. Their published cap is also a ladder rather than a number: 65% of ARV at a 650 score, 70% at 700, and 75% only with 700 plus a completed project. “650 minimum” and “up to 75% of ARV” are both true and no single borrower can have both.

Lenders contradict themselves

Park Place Finance, collected and not shown, publishes four different term ranges and three different maximum loan amounts across two of its own pages. LendingOne, also collected and not shown, publishes three different closing times on one page — five days in the hero, seven to ten in its own comparison table, ten business days in the FAQ. Kiavi states both 100% and 95% loan-to-cost on the same page. None of that is hidden below; every instance is recorded with both sources and the date, under the lender’s own detail. When a lender says three things, the honest presentation is to show all three.

Nobody publishes how the interest accrues

Only Lima One and Private Money Lenders state whether interest accrues on the full loan or only on what you have drawn — and PML is the only lender we have read anywhere that lets the borrower choose which basis to take. The other eleven do not say, and it is not a small omission. LendingOne states it too, and is no longer on this table; the changelog says why. On the example deal in our cost-of-capital calculator — a $350,000 purchase with a $100,000 rehab, a $400,000 loan at 11.5% with 2 points, held 9 months — charging interest on the full commitment instead of the drawn balance costs $2,396 more, about 6% of the total financing cost. That is the arithmetic on one deal rather than a survey of the market, and on a larger rehab holdback the gap is wider. Draw type is nearly as bad: twelve of the thirteen do not publish whether rehab funds are advanced before the work or reimbursed after it, even where the draw process is otherwise documented in detail. Private Money Lenders is the sole exception, and it says plainly that draws are reimbursed after an inspector clears the work. Advanced against reimbursed is probably the largest single driver of how much of your own cash a project ties up, and you will not find it on any of these pages.

Run a quote through the cost-of-capital calculator to see what the answer is worth on your own deal.

Common questions

Where do these numbers come from?
Each lender's own published pages, and nothing else. No review sites, no directories, no roundups. That rule earned its place during collection: third-party FICO figures were wrong for every lender sampled, in some cases by 60 to 80 points or a full product tier, and two directories gave contradictory state lists for the same lender. Every figure on this page carries its own source link and the date it was read, because provenance here is per field rather than per lender — Anchor's entity rule comes from a blog FAQ, its loan range from a location page and its FICO floor from the product page, all on one row.
Why is there no best lender here?
Because there is no honest way to publish one. These lenders are not measuring the same things: leverage is quoted against three different denominators, closing times are counted from six different starting points, and a low credit floor at one lender is paid for with an experience requirement that would rule out most readers. A ranking would have to flatten all of that into an order, and the order would be wrong for most people reading it. This page routinely shows that a competitor fits a deal better than the alternatives, and that is the point of it rather than a cost of it.
Why does the table start at no flips?
Because published leverage is conditional on experience at most lenders, and the industry convention is to print the best case. A static table that does that shows leverage no first-time borrower can get. Starting at no flips corrects the failure mode rather than reproducing it. Selecting a different tier re-renders the leverage figures to that tier's published values; lenders that publish no tiering show the same numbers at all three, and say so.
Why do so many cells say not published?
Because that is the answer. A blank invites a reader to assume, and a borrowed number invites them to act on something the lender never said. Interest accrual basis is unpublished on eleven of the thirteen lenders here. Draw type — whether rehab money is advanced before work or reimbursed after it — is unpublished on twelve of the thirteen, even at lenders that document their draw process in detail; exactly one says outright that its draws are reimbursed. Those absences are the most useful thing on the page, because they are the questions to ask before signing.
Why can I sort some columns and not others?
Four of them order cleanly and one comes with a warning. Minimum credit score, minimum loan amount and the ARV cap are each a single measurement, defined the same way by every lender that publishes one, so putting them in order compares like with like. Maximum leverage is the exception: five of these lenders publish a share of total cost, five publish a share of the purchase price with rehab funded on top, and three publish no basis at all — so an order across that column lines up percentages rather than loans, and a notice says so whenever it is the active order. The basis is printed beside every figure, which is the thing to read before you read the order. Everywhere, lenders that publish nothing sort to the bottom rather than the top, because not publishing a number is not the same as having the lowest one. The table opens alphabetically and there is always a click back to it — any other order is one you asked for, not a ranking this page publishes.
Why is there no time-to-close column?
Because the seventeen lenders here are not measuring the same thing, and by the end it was six different things. Some count from application. One counts from final approval, which skips everything before it. One counts to issuing loan documents rather than to funding. One starts the clock only after every third-party and borrower deliverable is in — that is, after the slow part is already done. One counts from receipt of the appraisal. Lined up in a column those numbers would rank a lender fastest on a measurement nobody else is using, and no footnote small enough to fit in a table header can carry that. The figures are all still collected and every one appears in that lender's expanded record with a note saying what it counts from. If you need to compare closing speed, that is the honest place to do it, one lender at a time.
Which lenders are missing?
Broker-channel lenders. Four collected lenders — Roc Capital, RCN Capital, Temple View Capital and Rehab Financial Group — are wholly or partly broker-only, meaning a borrower cannot apply to them directly. A borrower-facing comparison should not lead with lenders a borrower cannot reach, so they are not rows. Their published guidelines are still cited below where they explain something the eight displayed lenders do not, and the collected data is retained rather than deleted.

10 further lenders were collected and are not shown here: LendingOne, Anchor Loans, Roc Capital, Park Place Finance, RCN Capital, Temple View Capital, Rehab Financial Group, Backflip, Visio Lending, Pineyro Capital Group (SellMoneyMakeMoney). Four are broker-channel and three publish nothing this page can compare. Their guidelines are retained in full, and the changelog dates and explains every one of those decisions.

Every figure was read from the lender’s own published pages and carries its source and the date it was read. This page describes published lending guidelines. It is not a loan offer, not a commitment to lend, and not advice about which loan to take.