Benchmarks are only useful as a diagnostic. A floor two points under on funded rate has a problem somewhere specific, and the point of the table is to find which step rather than to conclude the leads are bad.
| Stage | What it measures | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Delivered → contacted | Whether the numbers are live and you called fast | Client-reported |
| Contacted → qualified conversation | Whether the screening held on the phone | Client-reported |
| Qualified → statements received | Whether the ask was made properly | Client-reported |
| Statements → submitted | Whether files were fundable | Client-reported |
| Qualified lead → submitted to a lender: about 15% | 10% to the low twenties still works | Measured on our funnel, and client-reported on the same definition |
| Submitted → funded | Placement and paper quality | Client-reported |
| Overall: 2–4 funded per 50 | The number we quote | Client-reported to September 2026 |
We publish the end-to-end figure as a range because that is what clients report back, and we quote the bottom of it. The intermediate stages vary far more between floors than the end figure does, which is itself the finding: the differences are made on the phone, not in the leads.
Reading your own table
- A weak contact rate with a healthy everything-else is a speed problem or a number-quality problem. Check time to first dial before you blame the leads.
- A strong contact rate with weak qualification means the screening criteria are not what you were told, or your reps are disqualifying too hard.
- Qualified conversations that never produce statements is the single most common leak, and it is entirely a process fix.
- Submissions that do not fund is a placement problem, not a lead problem.
What we publish, and what we will not
Precise percentages for most of the intermediate stages. We see what clients tell us, the definitions differ between them, and turning that into a decimal would be inventing precision we do not have. The exception is lead to submission, where the form fixes the definition — a qualified lead is one that cleared the gates and entered the passcode — and enough floors report on it for about 15% to mean something. The end-to-end figure is the other one enough clients report on the same definition for a range to hold.
Questions brokers ask
How many MCA leads does it take to fund a deal?
On exclusive, phone-verified leads our clients report two to four funded per fifty, which is roughly 12 to 25 leads per funded deal. The worst recorded outcome was zero and the best was eight, and both came down to how the leads were worked.
What is a good contact rate on MCA leads?
High, on mobile-verified leads called quickly — the number was confirmed live minutes before delivery. If your contact rate is poor on that kind of lead, check your median time to first dial before concluding anything about the leads.
Where does the biggest drop-off happen?
Between a qualified conversation and receiving bank statements. It is the step that depends most on process — asking on the call rather than by email afterwards — and it is almost entirely fixable.
Why not publish exact percentages for every stage?
Because the definitions differ between the shops reporting them — one floor’s "qualified" is another’s "answered the phone". Turning that into decimals would be inventing precision we do not have. Lead to submission is the exception, at about 15%, because the passcode fixes what a lead is.
What should you compare your numbers against?
Your own, last quarter, on the same leads and the same floor. Cross-vendor benchmarks are noisy for definitional reasons, and the trend in your own table is the signal worth acting on.
Alex Makowski
Founder, Infinite Bookings
Runs the lead generation operation behind Infinite Bookings — paid traffic, the funding application, and the delivery pipeline that puts records into brokers’ CRMs.
Reachable directly at alex@infinitebookings.com or 732-609-7182.