Pricing Asset-Based Loans: A Checklist for DealHub vs Salesforce CPQ

Can the tool apply a different advance rate by collateral type, receivables, inventory, equipment, without a rep manually adjusting the formula for every deal? A lender working across several collateral categories needs this handled as a pricing rule, not a spreadsheet a credit officer maintains separately from the quoting tool.

Test this with a blended-collateral deal specifically, since a single-collateral demo won't reveal whether the tool handles a mixed borrowing base correctly. Most vendor demos default to the simplest case unless you push for the messier one.

Does pricing update when your own cost of capital shifts? Broader borrowing costs move with the rate environment; the 10-year Treasury yield, a common reference point, sat near 4.44% recently, and a specialty lender's own funding cost tends to move with benchmarks like that one¹. A quoting tool that can't reflect a funding cost change quickly risks locking in a spread that doesn't actually cover your cost of funds by the time the deal closes.

Ask how a spread adjustment flows through to a term sheet already in a borrower's hands, since that's the scenario that actually costs money if it's handled poorly.

Can the tool bundle an origination fee, an unused line fee, and covenant terms into one document without a credit officer assembling it by hand from three different templates? Test this with an actual recent deal's fee structure, not a simplified demo scenario.

A credit officer who has to reassemble a term sheet from separate documents every time defeats the entire point of adopting a CPQ tool in the first place.

How much of the gap between issuing a term sheet and closing does the tool actually close? DealHub tends to move faster here for a leaner underwriting team, since guided pricing gets a credit officer to a term sheet without waiting on a separate documentation specialist. Salesforce CPQ holds up better once a lender is managing a large, diverse portfolio with covenant tracking tied directly into CRM records that a broader credit and compliance team relies on.

Measure your own current gap in days before assuming either tool will close it; that baseline tells you how much room for improvement actually exists.

Confirm whether either tool ties into how you monitor covenant compliance after the loan closes, since a lender's real operational burden is often post-close monitoring, not the initial quote. Neither CPQ platform is built primarily for ongoing covenant monitoring, so plan for that to remain a separate system regardless of which one you choose for quoting.

Don't let a vendor's demo distract from this gap; a clean quoting flow that dead-ends at close still leaves your credit team's biggest workload unaddressed.

Name the person responsible for configuring and maintaining collateral rules, fee structures, and the cost-of-capital reference before you sign with either vendor, not after. A credit operations lead who understands why receivables and equipment price differently is a better fit for this role than an IT administrator working from a spec sheet.

Without a clear owner, pricing rules tend to drift out of date within a few months, and nobody notices until a deal prices incorrectly. Name that owner in writing before the contract is signed, not as an afterthought once the tool is already live.

A smaller lending shop closing a handful of deals a month usually gets to accurate, current pricing faster with DealHub's lighter setup, since the ongoing maintenance burden of a deeper system rarely pays for itself at that volume. A larger shop with a diverse collateral mix, multiple credit officers, and compliance reporting tied into Salesforce tends to find Salesforce CPQ's structure worth the setup cost.

Run the numbers on your own deal volume and collateral complexity before deciding, rather than defaulting to whichever platform a peer lender happens to use.

Signals that point toward each platform:

• A handful of deals a month and a lean underwriting team point toward DealHub's lighter setup and its faster path to accurate, current pricing.
• A diverse collateral mix and multiple credit officers point toward the deeper configuration that Salesforce CPQ offers.
• Compliance reporting tied into Salesforce is another reason to favor Salesforce CPQ over a lighter tool.
• A very complex, highly customized covenant structure across a diverse loan book favors Salesforce CPQ, while standard covenant packages usually fit DealHub.