As of 31 August 2026, the public pages we reviewed clearly marketed founder-direct SaaS revenue financing at two of six familiar names: Founderpath and Lighter Capital. Capchase and Pipe marketed different models; Uncapped's reviewed product pages did not name a founder-direct SaaS RBF offer; re:cap's wording left its role unclear. Founderpath publishes a discount floor and Lighter a repayment cap. Under a fixed, unreduced-cap benchmark, faster repayment raises the annualised rate; Founderpath says borrowers generally save some remaining discount, subject to the term sheet.
CVF offers non-dilutive financing and may compete with some companies discussed here. Full disclosure at the end of the page.
The frame: what this page counts, and what it does not
The term revenue-based financing is used for at least three different structures, so a count of who still offers it is meaningless until the term is fixed. This page counts founder-direct recurring-revenue financing: capital a software founder can obtain from the provider itself, sized against ARR or MRR, without an equity round. That excludes financing sold to a company's customers, and it excludes capital distributed only inside someone else's software. Both exclusions do real work below.
A term is published if it appears on the provider's own website, on a page a founder can open without a sales call. Third-party review sites quoting a 10–12% range for a provider do not count; those figures move around, carry no date, and they are not first-party published terms.
Six names appear in several prominent provider roundups we reviewed. They are a selected sample, not the market: nothing here supports a claim about providers we did not read. We opened each one's own pages on 31 August 2026 and recorded what was there.
| Provider | Qualifying offer on reviewed pages? | Pricing input for that offer | Main caveat |
|---|---|---|---|
| Founderpath founderpath.com/products/revenue-financing, /saas-financing/revenue-based-financing | Yes | Discount from 7% of funded amount | Two RBF pages describe different entry points — see "Founderpath eligibility" below |
| Lighter Capital lightercapital.com/faq, /how-it-works | Yes | 1.3×–1.5× repayment cap | Confirm early-settlement amount |
| re:cap re-cap.com, /financing-instruments/growth-capital, /financing-instruments/saas-funding | Unclear | None found | Role and product ceilings unclear |
| Capchase capchase.com | No on pages reviewed | — | Buyer financing |
| Pipe pipe.com/products/capital | No on pages reviewed | — | Partner-distributed MCA |
| Uncapped weareuncapped.com/frequently-asked-questions | No named qualifying offer | — | Prices published for other products |
All entries read on 31 August 2026 from the providers' own pages, at the URLs given in each row; page bodies are archived on our side with that date. Text inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is copied from the provider's page; everything outside quotation marks is our reading of those pages, not the provider's wording.
Within this selected sample, three providers published at least one numerical pricing input somewhere on the pages reviewed. Only two inputs belonged to the qualifying founder-direct offers: Founderpath's discount floor and Lighter Capital's repayment cap. Uncapped's published monthly fee and APR applied to other products. This sample does not show how common public pricing is across the wider market.
Turning a cap or a discount into a rate
Our earlier piece on the true cost of revenue-based financing set out the conversion in detail. A cap states total repayment; an annualised rate expresses the timing of those payments. This page applies that method to the two live offers.
The method is deliberately simple so anyone can reproduce it. Take the amount received, take the total to be repaid, assume equal monthly payments over the term, and solve for the monthly rate that makes the two sides equal. Multiply by twelve for the nominal annual rate; compound for the effective one.
Method check: an ordinary amortising loan at 12% nominal over 36 months returns 1.195715 times the principal; run that multiple back through the method and it returns exactly 12.0% nominal.
Equal payments are a reproducible benchmark, not a best case or a worst case. Real revenue-linked payments are not equal, and the direction of the error depends on the shape of the schedule: for the same total and the same final date, payments that start small and grow can produce a lower internal rate of return than equal ones, and front-loaded payments a higher one. Use the fastest plausible repayment case as a stress test; the actual rate depends on actual payment dates. What the benchmark buys is comparability: every offer below is converted the same way, from figures the provider published.
Lighter Capital: what an unreduced cap would imply
The FAQ publishes a repayment cap of 1.3×–1.5× the funded amount, collected as "a fixed percentage of topline revenue until the total repayment cap is reached", over a term that is "typically 3 years, but you might pay it off sooner if your business grows quickly." The reviewed Lighter pages quote different maxima ("up to $10 million" on the FAQ, "up to $4M USD or $1M AUD" on the plan table); the public wording does not make clear whether the difference reflects product or market scope.
| Published cap | Repaid over 18 months | 24 months | 36 months (Lighter's typical term) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3× | 35.0% nominal / 41.3% effective | 26.6% / 30.1% | 17.9% / 19.5% |
| 1.4× | 45.7% / 56.6% | 34.6% / 40.7% | 23.3% / 26.0% |
| 1.5× | 56.0% / 72.9% | 42.4% / 51.7% | 28.6% / 32.6% |
Equal monthly payments, no fees other than the cap, computed by CVF on 31 August 2026 from the cap published on lightercapital.com. The 36-month column matches Lighter's published typical term; the 18- and 24-month columns are our sensitivity scenarios for the faster repayment its FAQ describes, not terms Lighter publishes. Lighter Capital does not publish a rate; these are our conversions of its published cap, not its quotes.
If the full 1.3× cap remains payable, the equal-payment benchmark implies 17.9% nominal over 36 months and 35.0% over 18 months. Lighter's public wording points in that direction, but the settlement amount for a specific contract must be confirmed in its term sheet. The FAQ's own words: repayment is of "your loan (plus return cap)", and "there is generally no incentive for paying back an RBF loan early."
This is also why a 1.3× cap and a 1.5× cap are not twenty points apart. On the three-year benchmark they imply 17.9% against 28.6% nominal, a difference of more than half the cheaper price. The phrase "depending on the health and stage of your business" is doing a great deal of pricing work in a single clause.
Founderpath: a discount it says generally shrinks on early settlement
Founderpath prices revenue financing differently, and the difference matters more than the headline number. Its discount is charged on the money it advances, not on the face value of the contracts: the guide page defines the discount rate as "the cost of RBF capital, expressed as a percentage of the funded amount", says "the discount rate on Revenue Financing is 7%", and gives the worked example — "a $200K advance is repaid as $214K in fixed monthly installments over 12–36 months." That is a multiple of 1.07 on the amount received, not the 1.075 you get by grossing a 7% haircut back up. Repayment is "a fixed monthly amount, similar to a standard amortizing loan", so the term, not a revenue share, sets the speed.
| Published discount | Repaid over 12 months | 24 months | 36 months |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7% of the funded amount (the published floor) | 12.7% nominal / 13.4% effective | 6.6% / 6.8% | 4.4% / 4.5% |
Equal monthly payments on a total of 1.07× the amount funded, computed by CVF on 31 August 2026 from the discount, the term range and the worked example published on founderpath.com. The three columns are the ends and midpoint of Founderpath's own published 12–36 month range. Founderpath publishes only the 7% floor; on the same method a 10% discount costs 18.0% nominal over twelve months and 6.3% over thirty-six, and a 12% discount 21.5% and 7.5% — sensitivity, not quotes.
The annualised rate falls as the same 7% charge is spread over more months; the contractual dollar charge does not fall unless the early-settlement terms reduce it. On that second point Founderpath's FAQ says "You can repay early at any time and generally save on the remaining discount — there is no prepayment penalty": "generally" is Founderpath's word, so the amount actually saved is a term-sheet question, but the stated direction is the opposite of a fixed cap's.
Founderpath states its entry bar three different ways on three of its own pages, read the same day: "$10K+ MRR (approximately $120K ARR)", a "$1M–$3M ARR" company stage, and "$500K+ Last-year revenue" on the cash advance page. The cash-advance threshold applies to a different product. The two revenue-financing pages, however, appear to describe different entry points: $10K+ MRR on the guide page and a $1M–$3M ARR company stage on the product page. These may be a minimum and a target segment rather than competing eligibility rules, but the public pages do not explain the relationship. Ask which threshold applies.
The mechanic, once, in full
Early-settlement economics follow the contract, not the product label. If the same total is paid earlier under a comparable payment pattern, the annualised rate rises; if the settlement amount falls, the borrower may save dollars. Exact IRR still depends on the actual payment dates.
Labels alone do not resolve this. Founderpath says its remaining discount is generally reduced, while Uncapped says its cash-advance fee is fixed and not rebated. For this cost comparison, ask for the exact dollar payoff amount on several possible settlement dates.
Uncapped's FAQ contains both structures side by side — a useful same-page contrast. On its term loan: "Early repayment reduces your interest costs, since interest only accrues on the outstanding balance." On its cash advance: "since the fee is fixed upfront, paying early does not result in a fee reduction or rebate." Same lender, same page, opposite answers — because the two products charge for money in different ways.
What the other four are selling now
Capchase. The homepage read on 31 August 2026 sells to software and hardware vendors, and Capchase lends to their buyers: instant credit decisions on the buyer, monthly, quarterly and extended net terms, buy-now-pay-later loan servicing, and a qualification flow inside Salesforce. That is the opposite direction of travel from an ARR advance to a founder. The old "Grow" product did not appear in the navigation we reviewed, and capchase.com/grow now redirects to the homepage. We found no published price for the buyer financing. Third-party reviews still quote a 10% to 12% discount fee for the old ARR product; those numbers are neither dated nor confirmed by Capchase, which is why they are not in the table.
Pipe. Pipe described the change itself, in a 2026 article on its own site: the best way to reach small businesses was "not by operating as a standalone destination, but by embedding capital in the platforms small businesses already use", naming "Uber, Boulevard, Housecall Pro, Live Payments and GoCardless". The product page uses the legal term itself, so we do too: "Pipe offers a Merchant Cash Advance, where a customer sells a portion of its future revenue for up-front capital. The MCA is paid as a percentage of revenue." A SaaS founder looking to sell a year of ARR will not find that offer on Pipe's current public pages. Our older profile, Pipe as a fintech pioneer in revenue-based financing, describes the earlier model and should be read as history.
Uncapped. Its current pages name three products — term loans, a line of credit and a cash advance — and none of them is called revenue-based financing. The cash advance is nonetheless repaid out of revenue, at "5%–25%" of daily sales with "no set term length, as repayment speed depends on your revenue", which is why the frame at the top of this page matters: by structure it is revenue-linked, by market it is aimed at e-commerce rather than at SaaS founders. We found no announcement of an RBF withdrawal on its blog, and its older guide to revenue-based finance is still live and still says "we offer investment capital with offers ranging from £100k to £10m" — so the evidence is what the product pages name today, and they do not name RBF.
re:cap. Pages previously detailing re:cap's pricing and funding products now return 404. What stands in their place is an assessment platform: it scores a company "against criteria you rarely get to see" across debt, equity, grants and internal cash, then narrows to products and named providers. Whether re:cap still lends is genuinely unclear from its own site. Two re:cap pages quote different ceilings and describe different roles: up to €5M "with re:cap" and up to €20M "arranged through re:cap"; the relationship is unclear. We found no rate on the pages reviewed.
Why the published inputs still need modelling
None of the six publishes an all-in annual rate for a qualifying offer on the pages reviewed. Founderpath's fixed instalments allow a benchmark to be modelled from its discount and term; Lighter's revenue-linked structure requires an assumed or actual payment path. The public pages do not establish why the providers chose these disclosure formats.
The comparison work therefore lands on the founder. Our piece on how much you can borrow against MRR covers the sizing side; the pricing side needs five questions.
Five questions that turn any offer into a rate
- What is the total repayment, in dollars, if I repay on the expected schedule? If the provider quotes a cap, multiply. If it quotes a discount, ask the question below before you do any arithmetic at all.
- Is the discount charged on the money I receive, or on the face value of what I sell? These are different prices. Founderpath's published example — $200K advanced, $214K repaid — is the first kind, and reading it as the second overstates the cost.
- Does the settlement amount fall if I repay early? Ask for dollar payoff amounts at several dates and model both the expected and fastest plausible schedules.
- What sets the repayment speed — a fixed monthly amount, or a percentage of revenue? A fixed instalment makes the term knowable in advance. A revenue share does not, and the term is what converts the cap into a rate.
- Are there fees outside the headline number, and what equity-linked terms or credit support are required? Origination charges, platform subscriptions and monitoring fees all sit outside the multiple and need adding before converting. Warrants and equity kickers change the cost of the capital; a personal guarantee does not by itself change scheduled cash payments, but it changes the founder's downside risk. Where a provider is silent, ask.
With payment dates and fees, you can estimate a cash-cost annual rate. Warrants, guarantees and other contingent terms should remain visible as separate economic terms.
Disclosure and sourcing
CVF offers non-dilutive financing and may compete with some companies discussed here. This is a dated review of selected public pages, not a verification of live term sheets, a ranking or a recommendation. Quoted text comes from page copies captured on 31 August 2026; unquoted descriptions are our interpretation, and calculated rates are benchmarks under the assumptions stated. Each table row names the URLs of its source pages; all captures are dated 31 August 2026.
Frequently asked questions
Which of these providers publish their pricing?
Three of the six, read on 31 August 2026. Founderpath publishes a floor discount ("From 7%" of the funded amount) and an interest rate for its term loan; Lighter Capital publishes a repayment cap ("1.3-1.5X the funded amount") but no rate; Uncapped publishes a monthly fee and an APR, though for products other than RBF. re:cap publishes size but no rate. Note that a collection share — Founderpath's "From 5%" of monthly sales, Uncapped's "5%–25%" of daily sales — sets how fast a cash advance is repaid, not what it costs; neither company publishes the fee on that product. We found no published price for Capchase or Pipe.
Is a 1.3× cap cheaper than a 20% APR loan?
Not from the cap alone. Both offers must be compared using the same cash-flow dates, fee treatment and rate convention. Under our equal-payment benchmark, 1.3× implies 17.9% nominal/19.5% effective at 36 months and 26.6%/30.1% at 24 months, before other fees. Those model outputs are not directly equivalent to an advertised APR unless the conventions and included charges match.
Does Pipe still buy SaaS ARR from founders?
Not on its current public pages, which describe a Merchant Cash Advance — Pipe's own term — delivered through partner platforms to small businesses. Pipe's own 2026 article describes the move away from operating as a standalone destination.
How should I compare a discount with a cap?
Convert both to a rate on the money you receive, using the same repayment assumption, and check first whether the discount is charged on the amount funded or on the face value of what you sell. At a common 24-month equal-payment benchmark, 7% of the funded amount implies 6.6% nominal, while a 1.3× cap implies 26.6% nominal. Both are CVF model outputs, not provider quotes, and both exclude any additional fees.
