How Mortna Compares
How We Compare
Four ways to handle loan quality. Only one is turnkey.
Most lenders run quality review one of four ways: an in-house team, a traditional BPO, a software tool, or Mortna. Here is how they stack up on the things that actually cost you time and money.
| In-House Team | Traditional BPO | Software-Only | Mortna | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turnaround | Limited by headcount; backs up under volume | Days — offshore handoffs and rework | Instant output, but no judgment | SLA-backed hours — AI drafts, a reviewer signs off |
| Cost model | Fixed salaries, benefits, overhead | Per-FTE contracts and minimums | License fee — you still staff the review | Variable — you pay per file reviewed |
| Scaling up or down | Hire, train, or lay off | Slow ramp; notice periods to reduce | Scales, but you still staff reviewers | Scale on demand — no hiring, no ramp |
| QC independence | Same chain as production (D1-2 conflict) | Varies by vendor | N/A | Fully independent of your production chain |
| US mortgage depth | Deep, but scarce and expensive | Generalist; variable expertise | Rules engine only | Reviewers trained on Fannie/Freddie/FHA/VA/USDA + AI pre-trained on the guidelines |
| AI + human | Manual, or you buy tools to run | Mostly manual labor | AI only — no human sign-off | AI does the work; humans do the judgment |
| Citations & audit trail | Depends on the reviewer | Depends on the vendor | Partial | Every finding cited to the guideline section; full audit trail |
| Time to go live | Weeks to hire and train | Months of onboarding | An implementation project | Days |
| Who owns the outcome | You | You manage the vendor | You | We own the outcome — reviewed files, cleared conditions |
See it on your own files.
Send us 50 files — free, no commitment. Compare our findings to whatever you run today.