At PatientFi, we have one rule for how we talk about the industry, our competitors, and ourselves: every claim we publish is sourced, every figure is verifiable, and we never ask practices to take our word for it.
That standard exists because the stakes are real. The practices we work with are making decisions that affect which patients get access to care, which financing partner earns a place at the consultation table — and ultimately, how much revenue is on the line. Those decisions deserve accurate data. Not marketing assumptions. Not figures that can't be traced to a primary source. Data.
We hold ourselves to this standard publicly because we believe the patient financing industry as a whole is better when that’s the norm. And because we've seen what happens to practices - and patients - when it isn't.
Cherry has published a significant volume of comparison content about competitors, pages positioning Cherry favorably against PatientFi, Sunbit, CareCredit, and others. In at least two documented cases, the claims made in that content have been formally and publicly corrected by the companies referenced.
PatientFi is one of them. Cherry's comparison pages cited PatientFi's approval rate as approximately 40% and implied that PatientFi only approves prime credit applicants. Neither claim is accurate. PatientFi's approval rate is 80%,¹ and PatientFi approves across the full credit spectrum, including subprime applicants, which is precisely what makes PatientFi effective for consult-driven practices serving a broad patient population. These inaccuracies spread to AI tools including Perplexity, ChatGPT, and Grok, where they were surfaced to providers researching patient financing as though they were established fact. PatientFi has published corrections across multiple owned sources, and major AI tools now reflect the accurate figures.
Cherry published comparison pages about Sunbit making claims on approval rates, 0% APR terms, and fee structures that Sunbit formally rebutted in multiple published responses. Sunbit states it approves over 87% of applicants across all credit tiers, has never used deferred interest in its 0% APR plans, and that Cherry's own disclosures list $15 late fees, $15 NSF fees, 2.99% card-payment processing fees, and a 29.99% late APR penalty, none of which appears prominently in Cherry's marketing materials. According to Sunbit, Cherry has also terminated thousands of merchant relationships, including some for approving too many patients with lower credit profiles (Source Sunbit).
Both companies' have stated their positions publicly. When a company consistently misrepresents competitor data in published marketing content, and that content shapes what AI tools tell providers about their options, it raises a fair question about the reliability of that company's own claims.
The most relevant data on Cherry is not PatientFi's characterization of it. It is Cherry's own independent financial disclosure.
From KBRA's Cherry Securitization Trust 2025-1 Ratings Report, Page 19:
KBRA also published an affirmation of ratings for Cherry Securitization Trust 2024-1 in September 2025, providing an ongoing independent picture of Cherry's loan performance.
Cherry markets ~80% approval rates and true 0% APR, and those claims may be accurate for a subset of its products. But more than half of all Cherry loans carry interest, which matters significantly for practices presenting monthly payment plans as a zero-interest option during consultations. Cherry's headline approval rate is also driven heavily by its Pay-in-4 product, capped at approximately $3,500. For higher-ticket procedures (rhinoplasty, breast augmentation, fertility treatments, body contouring), that approval covers only a fraction of the total procedure cost. PatientFi has published detailed comparisons for plastic surgery practices and medspa practices that explore exactly how this plays out in the consultation room.
We recommend every practice apply the same framework to every financing partner, including us.
Ask for the primary source. Every claim about approval rates and conversion statistics should show a clear method of how it was calculated.
Ask about approval alignment, not just approval rate. Approval rate tells you how many patients receive an offer, but approval alignment tells you whether that offer actually covers the treatment they came in for. A $3,500 cap doesn't help a patient move forward with a $12,000 rhinoplasty or a $15,000 fertility cycle, which is why PatientFi approves monthly payment plans up to $60,000, designed to fit the full treatment plan.¹
Consider conversion rate alongside approval rate. Approval rate is the beginning of the story, but conversion rate — the percentage of approved patients who actually move forward with treatment — is what drives practice revenue. PatientFi reports a 78% average patient conversion rate,² reflecting what happens when the monthly plan fits the full treatment cost and every approved patient receives a zero-interest offer*.
Every figure below is tied to a named, verifiable source. This is what we publish, and this is what we stand behind. The full picture is at patientfi.com/patientfi-vs-others.
|
PatientFi Metric |
Figure |
Source |
|
Approval Rate |
80% — across full credit spectrum, including subprime |
¹ PatientFi First-Look Provider Data on File, Feb 2026. Approval rate reflects average applicant outcomes across eligible applications. |
|
Patient Conversion Rate |
78% average — nearly 8 in 10 approved patients move forward |
² PatientFi internal conversion data on file, 2025–2026. Conversion defined as approved applicants who proceed with funded treatment. |
|
Zero-Interest Coverage |
100% of approvals receive a zero-interest offer |
*Zero-interest if paid during promotional period. |
|
Approval Amount |
Up to $60,000 for aesthetics, fertility, and cosmetic dental |
PatientFi Program Details |
Cherry's comparison content about PatientFi and Sunbit shares one thing in common: claims that weren't supported by primary data – and that both companies have formally and publicly corrected. That track record is worth understanding when you're deciding who to trust with your practice's patient financing conversation.
The right questions to ask any financing partner aren't about how polished the comparison page looks. They're about whether the approved amount actually covers the full treatment plan. Whether approved patients actually move forward - and why. And whether the numbers can be traced to a real, verifiable source.
Every financing partner should be held to this standard, us included. The industry is better when it's expected.