Introduction
More and more B2B payment systems are asking the following question: Should a merchant be paid the instant they become eligible to use working capital? Embedding loans into the payments process is not technologically complicated; the challenging part is deciding which model will work best for the platform, merchants, and risk tolerance. Micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises make up the bulk of businesses worldwide and employ a substantial workforce; nevertheless, many struggle to access financing that would help them grow 1. Choosing the right model is a technical matter, not a professional one.
What Embedded Lending Looks Like Inside a B2B Payment Platform
Embedded lending refers to a lending process that occurs within the software experience the merchant uses, rather than through a separate application process. In the B2B payment context, the natural place for embedded lending is settlement – the merchant logs into their dashboard to see incoming payments and, along with the balance, they are presented with an offer – an advance on expected receivables, credit based on recent transaction volume, or repayment linked to future sales.
The key is that the lending isn’t the reason that the merchant signed up for the product. Payment remains the software’s primary function; lending remains secondary. This affects how everything else operates: the offer needs to be instantly comprehensible, the repayment process shouldn’t interfere with the cash flow the merchant wants the platform to manage, and the merchant shouldn’t feel their payment rail is being leveraged for a debt product.
Why Payment Platforms Add Lending Capabilities
The business rationale is rarely lending alone. For platforms, embedded lending helps achieve three things simultaneously: building deeper relations with merchants; increasing the volume of transactions processed within the platform; and generating a revenue stream that differs from payment fees.
For merchants, embedded lending can change how they obtain financing within an established platform process. A company already transacting through the platform has relevant transaction data for an eligibility check, avoiding repeated data collection required for a standalone application. In revenue-based repayment, repayments change with transaction/revenue flows, while fixed installments follow a pre-set repayment scheme. Seasonal companies should choose the repayment scheme that best matches their cash flow pattern. None of these benefits automatically apply to all merchants or models, which is why the evaluation framework discussed further in this guide is necessary.
Provider Models Commonly Evaluated by Payment Platforms
Most products follow a relatively small set of structural archetypes. It is more valuable to identify which archetype a partner belongs to than to try to remember its branding.
Balance sheet lenders or licensed credit providers. An individual with its own lending license and capital facilitates the loan process throughout its lifecycle. The platform provides distribution and analytics while the provider controls credit decisioning, funding, and regulation. In this model, the platform does not build lending capabilities; it uses existing ones.
Modular lending infrastructure providers. Such providers provide all the building blocks of a lending solution – from credit decisioning through loan management and repayment processing to tools for compliance – in the form of an API. The platform maintains more control over the merchant experience and can build a lending solution from its components.
Funding or market partnership. This model includes a platform that connects merchants with potential funding partners and charges a fee or commission for the transaction. Unlike other models, a platform doesn’t include loans on its balance sheet, but a funding partner can handle underwriting and other aspects of lending to merchants.
Embedded finance platform providers. Some embedded finance platforms provide expertise in licensing, risk, and distribution of several financial products, including loans. A B2B payment platform can collaborate with such a provider if it is developing a broader financial services roadmap rather than focusing on a single loan offering.
These two models are not contradictory and can be combined, starting with one provider and moving to the next after reaching critical mass.
The Data Signals Each Model Depends On
A useful way to compare models is to ask what data drives the credit decision, because that determines which merchants you can serve.
Settlement and transactions data. Settlement and transaction data is already recorded on money movement platforms. Settlement and transaction data can indicate recent payment history and can be used to evaluate the financing application as part of anticipated collections.
Invoice and receivables data. When platforms work with invoices and receivables, they can help finance invoices, meaning the financing is repaid when the customer collects the invoice.
Bookkeeping and accounting data. Connected bookkeeping and accounting software can generate useful insights into expense history and payment behaviour. It can widen the pool of companies eligible for funding, including those who operate on platforms that only record payment volumes.
Business registry and bureau data. Providers supplement their data with bureau data in markets where it is available and reliable. If bureau data is unavailable or less reliable, providers must look to alternative sources, not just bureau scores.
Consider the available data when evaluating a model. A settlement-data-based model depends on access to payment information, while an invoice-based model depends on relevant invoice and receivables data.
How to Evaluate an Embedded Lending Provider
Beyond the model type, a structured comparison keeps the decision neutral. Six dimensions cover most differences between options.
- Merchant eligibility and approval philosophy. Ask how the partner defines a good merchant, which segments are typically declined, and whether approval logic can be tuned to your portfolio.
- Repayment design. Fixed instalments, revenue-linked payments, and invoice-linked collection behave very differently for seasonal or lumpy cash flow. Check whether repayment can follow how your merchants actually earn.
- Integration effort and timeline. Some partners are plug-and-play; others require deep workflow changes. Estimate engineering cost, not just the demo.
- Cost structure and transparency. Understand how the platform is compensated, how merchants are charged, and what happens to fees when loans are repaid early.
- Risk ownership and governance. Confirm who holds the credit risk, who owns collections, and how disputes are handled. Define these responsibilities clearly before launching the arrangement.
- Regulatory readiness across your markets. Lending rules differ by jurisdiction. A partner licensed in one region may not cover another, so platforms should review their target markets alongside the jurisdictions covered by the partner’s licences.
Responsibilities to Clarify Before Launch
Embedded lending redistributes responsibilities, even when it seems seamless from the merchant’s perspective. Prior to the deployment, both the platform and the lender need to outline which one is responsible for the following items: credit decisions and rationale provided to merchants that are declined, adherence to local lending and data privacy laws, safeguarding of merchants’ funds, collection procedures and dealing with late payments, as well as communication of problems that occur: missed repayments, disputed invoices or changes in terms of service.
Frequently asked questions
1. Does a platform need a lending licence to offer embedded lending?
Not necessarily — it depends on the model. When a licensed partner originates the loans and holds them on its own books, the platform can act as a distributor. When the platform wants to take credit risk itself, its own licensing and capital requirements change. Local rules differ, so confirm this market by market.
2. Which merchants benefit most from embedded lending at the point of payment?
Businesses with steady payment volume through the platform and a need for short-term working capital — for example, sellers with slow-paying customers or seasonal peaks. Businesses with limited transaction volume may provide fewer data points for models that rely primarily on platform activity.
3. How is repayment usually collected in an embedded lending model?
Common designs include a fixed percentage of future settlements, a fixed instalment schedule, or collection tied to specific invoice payments. Each changes how the merchant experiences the debt, so compare repayment design alongside price.
4. Will embedding lending slow down merchant payouts?
Only if the platform lets it, a well-designed arrangement keeps lending separate from the core payment rail. Hence, merchants who do not borrow are unaffected — verify this separation before launch.
5. How do platforms choose between building and partnering?
Building and partnering involve different responsibilities. Building may require the platform to develop or obtain capabilities related to licensing, capital, risk management, and lending operations. In a partnership model, the provider may handle some of these responsibilities, depending on the arrangement’s structure.
[1]https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/smefinance
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, investment, or other professional advice, nor does it constitute a recommendation of any product or service. This article should not be regarded as constituting an offer or a solicitation to buy or sell any regulated or financial products or services. It has not been reviewed by any regulatory authority in any jurisdiction. Bettr makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the content, and readers are encouraged to consult with legal, financial, or other professionals for advice tailored to their specific situation. Bettr does not guarantee the accuracy and completeness of this article and expressly disclaims any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance on this article.
