An honest comparison
We built Assesr because we believe technology can make development finance faster, cheaper, and more accessible. But we are not going to pretend that a platform is the right answer in every situation. Here is an honest look at where Assesr outperforms a traditional broker, and where a broker still wins.
Where Assesr wins
Speed. Assesr generates a credit paper in hours. A broker takes 1–4 weeks for the same output. If your deal has a tight exchange deadline or you are competing for a site, speed matters.
Cost. Assesr is free for borrowers. A broker charges 0.5–1.5% of the facility. On a £5m loan, that is £25,000–£75,000 saved.
Consistency. Every Assesr credit paper is structured identically, with the same analytical framework and sourced data. Broker quality varies — a great broker produces great work, but an average broker produces average work, and you may not know which you have until it is too late.
Mandate matching. Assesr matches deals to lenders algorithmically based on actual mandate criteria. Brokers rely on their personal network, which may not cover all relevant lenders — particularly newer or specialist entrants.
Transparency. You can see exactly what the lender sees. With a broker, the credit paper is often written and submitted without the borrower reviewing the final version.
Where a broker wins
Negotiation. A good broker can negotiate rates, fees, and terms in a way that technology cannot. They know what is achievable, what to push on, and when to compromise. On complex deals, skilled negotiation can save more than the broker's fee.
Relationships. Some lenders give preferential treatment to submissions from brokers they know and trust. A broker's endorsement can carry weight, particularly for marginal deals or unusual structures.
Complex structures. Deals involving multiple tranches, joint ventures, overage arrangements, or unusual security structures benefit from human expertise. These require bespoke analysis that goes beyond standard credit paper templates.
Hand-holding. First-time developers who want guidance throughout the entire process — not just the application — benefit from a broker who can advise on scheme viability, contractor selection, and exit strategy.
Problem-solving. When things go wrong during the build (cost overruns, programme delays, lender relationship issues), a broker can intervene and manage the situation. A platform generates the initial submission but does not manage the ongoing relationship.
The hybrid approach
Increasingly, the best outcome comes from using both. Use Assesr to generate the credit paper and identify matched lenders quickly (saving weeks and getting a higher-quality submission). Then engage a broker specifically for negotiation and relationship management — paying them for the value they actually add, not for data entry and document compilation.
Some brokers already work this way. They use technology to handle the packaging and focus their time on what they do best: advising clients and negotiating terms.
Bottom line
- Straightforward deal, cost-conscious, want speed: Use Assesr.
- Complex deal, need negotiation, value guidance: Use a broker.
- Want the best of both: Use Assesr for packaging, broker for negotiation.