True MCA burden
MetrikData excludes financing inflows, own transfers, and refunds from the revenue base, so burden reflects real trade revenue — the number a deposit threshold or burden rule should actually run on.
Compare
MetrikData vs Onyx IQ for MCA underwriting
Onyx IQ automates the whole lending lifecycle — origination, scorecard decisioning, servicing, syndication. MetrikData is the statement read that produces the numbers a decision runs on. Different layers of the stack — here’s how they line up.
Side by side
MetrikData vs Onyx IQ
CapabilityMetrikDataOnyx IQ
MCA burden (financing excluded)Yes—
Cadence typing (MCA vs loan)Yes—
Stacking positions detectedYesPartial
Self-serve, single PDF uploadYes—
Transparent published pricingYes—
Full lifecycle (pipeline, ACH, syndication)—Yes
Automated approve/decline scorecardsNo — by designYes
Statement analysisNative (built in)Via integrations
Yes / Partial / — reflect fit for the MCA bank-statement use case specifically, not overall product breadth.
Why the difference matters
Built for one job, not every document
Cadence-based position typing
Daily and weekly debits are typed as MCA positions; monthly and ~15-day debits as term loans. A rule engine is only as good as the position data it evaluates.
Self-serve, single PDF
Upload one statement and get a full read in minutes — no platform migration, no onboarding project, no seat contract to start.
Data, not a decision
MetrikData deliberately doesn’t auto-approve or auto-decline. It presents positions, burden, and risk signals; the judgment — human or scorecard — stays yours.
Every figure traces to a row
Positions, burden, and NSF counts each link to the exact transactions behind them, so an underwriter can audit any number instead of trusting a pipeline field.
Reads the statements you actually get
Text-based and scanned PDFs from every major US bank are read natively — no third-party parsing integration to configure or pay for separately.
The honest take
Onyx IQ is stronger if you want the whole lifecycle automated
If you’re a mid-to-large funder who needs origination, contract workflows, ACH servicing, syndication with an investor portal, and institutional-grade reporting in one system — with scorecards that turn credit policy into instant, consistent decisions — Onyx IQ is a mature platform built exactly for that. MetrikData doesn’t do any of it. The overlap is one step: reading the bank statement. Onyx evaluates bank data inside its rules; MetrikData produces that data — cadence-typed positions and financing-excluded burden — and via the API can feed it into a decision engine. The two aren’t either/or.
For the MetrikData side of that trade-off, see the MCA underwriting software overview — or brush up on the terminology in the MCA glossary.
FAQ
Common questions
Is MetrikData an Onyx IQ alternative?
Only for the statement-analysis step. Onyx IQ is a full-lifecycle lending platform with automated scorecard decisioning; MetrikData reads the bank statement for positions, cadence, and burden and leaves the decision to you. They sit at different layers of the stack and can be used together.
Does Onyx IQ analyze bank statements?
Onyx IQ evaluates bank data inside its scorecard rules and connects to bank-data and document providers through integrations. Cadence-typed positions and MCA burden against financing-excluded revenue are the specific outputs MetrikData is built to produce.
Can MetrikData feed a scorecard or decision engine?
Yes. The API on Pro and Team plans returns positions, cadence, burden, and risk signals as structured data, so an existing rule engine can run on numbers that trace back to actual statement rows.
Keep exploring
Related
See the difference on your own statement
Start free — run a real merchant statement and compare the output yourself.