If you qualify for a line of credit (typically 600+ FICO, 12+ months in business, $15k+/month deposits), it's almost always the better tool — revolving access, lower cost, only pay for what you draw. An MCA wins only when speed is critical or qualification gaps prevent line approval.
The decision is mostly about qualification. If both products are available to you, the line of credit is structurally better: you only pay for what you draw, you keep capital available for future needs without a new application, and the all-in cost is meaningfully lower.
Side-by-side:
The 'right' answer for borderline files: try for the line first. Most broker-network applications check both products on a single soft pull, and a line approval is a meaningfully better outcome. If the line declines and capital is genuinely needed, the MCA is the fallback — but eyes-open on the cost differential.
If this fits your situation, apply with ClearValue Lending — your file routes to the funding partners best matched to it.
An 18-month-old business with $18,000/month in deposits and 620 FICO needs $40,000 for working capital. Line-of-credit path: $50,000 limit at ~35% APR, draw $40,000, pay interest on what's drawn (~$1,170/month interest if held flat), redraw as the balance is paid down. MCA path: $40,000 at 1.34 factor over 9 months → $53,600 payback, ~$280/business-day ACH. Same need, ~$10k cost difference in the first 9 months — and the line stays available after the balance is paid.
Many borrowers default to MCAs because they fund faster, only to find they would have qualified for a line of credit at a fraction of the cost. A single broker-network soft pull usually checks both — always check.