Buy, Build or Partner? How Banks Can Choose the Most Scalable Lending Technology

Lending technology has rapidly transformed how banks and lenders offer loans and credit, making it possible to reach customers exactly where and when financing is needed—whether on the bank’s website or app, or embedded in a third-party channel (online, in-store, via call center, etc.). But to fully unlock this potential, financial institutions must first answer a crucial question: Should we buy a digital lending solution or build one in-house?

In this article, we’ll break down each option – Buy vs. Build – highlighting the benefits, risks and best-fit scenarios for each. We’ll also introduce a third option – Partnership – which could change the way you approach this decision.

If you’re responsible for your institution’s revenue growth or lending product innovation strategy, this guide will help you make a decision grounded in scalability, efficiency and compliance.

Buy vs. Build vs. Partner – What are the Pros and Cons?

1. Buy

Buying a white-labeled platform allows banks and lenders to deploy innovative lending programs quickly with minimal technical investment, but provides limited customization and control.

2. Build

Building in-house offers full ownership and control, but it comes with high resource requirements and extended development timelines.

3. Partner

The hybrid approach. Partnering with a solution provider enables banks to integrate their existing capabilities while selecting only the components they need from a modular platform.

Pros: Balances speed and customization, leverages existing tech stack, scalable and future-proof

Cons: Requires vendor collaboration and clear integration strategy

Key Questions to Guide Your Decision

To determine the best-fit approach, ask yourself:

• Is technology our core business?
• Do we have the in-house expertise to build and scale a compliant solution?
• Can we afford the time and cost of an in-house build?
• Are we able to innovate at the pace the market demands?
• Can we realistically go live in our required time frames?

If you answered “no” to most of these, a Buy or Partner approach may be your best bet.

While building a custom solution in-house might seem appealing for those seeking full control, the unpredictability, complexity, cost and time required to develop, maintain and scale such a platform often outweigh its potential benefits.

On the other end of the spectrum, buying an off-the-shelf SaaS product gives all the benefits of cost-efficiency, quick time to market and innovation, however it limits the level of customization and control often needed by banks.

Instead, banks and lenders often find that the best route for them to take is the partnership route, which strikes the optimal balance – the lender gains the level of control and customization they need without investing time and resources into building from scratch.

Unlike off-the-shelf solutions or full in-house builds, partnering gives banks the flexibility to:

• Leverage a modular architecture
• Integrate only the components they need
• Maximize efficiency while maintaining control

This approach reduces operational burden while allowing lenders to scale faster, ensure compliance, and stay competitive in a fast-moving market.

“Buy vs. build isn’t binary—and partner isn’t the middle ground. It’s a third path altogether.”
— Yaacov Martin, CEO, Jifiti – Buy vs. Build for Embedded Lending Webinar

Final Thoughts

When it comes to lending technology, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach. But one thing is clear: Partnering offers a strategic balance of speed, cost-efficiency, customization, and scalability – without the heavy lift of building from scratch.

As embedded lending becomes a must-have, choosing the right delivery model is key to future-proofing and accelerating your lending operations.

Want more info to help you make your Buy or Build decision?

Download our Buy vs. Build white paper.

---

Disclaimer: The information in this article is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice on any subject matter. The author is not responsible for any consequences whatsoever arising from the use of such information.