CapitalBridge vs Basecase
Basecase is credit intelligence: parse credit agreements, extract covenants, flag risk. CapitalBridge is ongoing compliance operations: track covenants, run borrower portal, maintain audit trail. Different stages of the credit lifecycle. Largely complementary.
Basecase is where a deal gets modelled. This is where it gets monitored for the next seven years.
At a glance
| Dimension | Basecase | CapitalBridge |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Credit agreement analysis + covenant extraction | Ongoing covenant operations + counterparty portal |
| Best for | Underwriting-heavy teams reviewing many agreements | Teams managing 30-300 active facilities post-close |
| Document parsing speed | Fast (purpose-built) | Standard |
| Cross-portfolio covenant search | Yes | Yes (matrix view) |
| Structural risk flagging | Yes (extraction layer) | Yes (operational layer) |
| Borrower self-service portal | No | Yes (built-in) |
| Ongoing covenant monitoring | Limited (more document intelligence) | Real-time, three-state, headroom buffers |
| Audit trail | Standard | SHA-256 chained ledger |
Where each one fits
Basecase leads at intake: fast credit-agreement parsing, covenant extraction straight from the contract text, structural risk flagging, and covenant search across the whole portfolio. For a team working through a stack of agreements during underwriting and diligence, that document-intelligence speed is the draw.
CapitalBridge picks up after the deal closes: a real-time, three-state covenant engine with configurable headroom buffers, a borrower self-service portal that collects the reporting those covenants depend on, and a SHA-256 chained audit trail across the life of the facility. The agreement Basecase parsed in an afternoon still needs testing, chasing and evidencing for years.
Many credit shops use Basecase for intake and diligence, then hand the closed facility to CapitalBridge for the operations that follow.
Extraction ends at the decision. Operations don't.
Basecase's work ends when the covenant has been found and the model built. The covenant then has to be tested every period for the life of the facility, against a figure the counterparty has not sent yet.
The covenant Basecase found still has to be tested
Extraction answers what the agreement says. CapitalBridge answers whether the borrower is still inside it, this period and every period after.
A model is built once. The reporting round trip runs every quarter for five to seven years, and that is the part that has to be somebody's system.
The facility outlives the closing memo
Basecase's read of the agreement was accurate on day one. CapitalBridge is what tracks that same facility every quarter after, borrower-submitted, chased and evidenced.
How does Basecase compare to CapitalBridge?+
Basecase is a credit intelligence platform focused on document analysis: fast credit agreement parsing, covenant extraction from contracts, structural risk identification, and cross-portfolio covenant search. CapitalBridge is an ongoing operations platform: covenant tracking, borrower self-service, and audit trail. Basecase shines during underwriting and diligence; CapitalBridge shines after the deal closes. Largely complementary.
Which is the better fit for underwriting-heavy teams?+
For underwriting-heavy teams reviewing many credit agreements and deal documents, Basecase is the stronger fit: fast parsing, cross-portfolio covenant search, structural risk flagging. For teams managing 30-300 active facilities post-close and needing covenant compliance, borrower reporting, and an audit-grade trail, CapitalBridge is purpose-built. Many credit shops use Basecase for intake and diligence, then CapitalBridge for post-close operations.