Better Digital Lending Company: OnEMI Technology vs Moneyview

Moneyview

Moneyview is a Bengaluru-based digital financial-services marketplace founded in 2014.

Formerly known as Whizdm Innovations, it connects borrowers with banks, NBFCs and insurers and is set to list on the bourses on 1st October 2026. The IPO is worth Rs 10,920 m, of which Rs 7,500 m is a fresh issue.

The company's flagship product is personal loans, which is supplemented by credit cards, insurance, distribution, digital gold, payments and earned wage access.

Being a fully digital platform, the company processes over 200,000 loan applications a day across 48 financial partners.

The company primarily earns in two ways: first, through the partner-funded route, where it earns a fee for origination and servicing and bears 5% of the losses; second, through interest from loan disbursals via its NBFC subsidiary, Whizdm Finance.

Kissht's market cap is Rs 64.7 billion (bn) as of 30 September 2026; Moneyview is yet to be listed on the market. However, its IPO is worth Rs 10.9 bn, of which Rs 7.5 bn is a fresh issue.

The company plans to use these Rs 7.5 bn to grow its loan disbursals through its partner-funded model and to grow its own loan book via Whizdm Finance.

Coming to the stock market performance, ONEMI's shares have grown 110% from its IPO price of Rs 170, and 87% from its listing price.

Userbase

If we compare the companies based on their user base, Moneyview has the larger pool, with 125.5 m registered users against Kissht's 63.7 m. Kissht, however, has a bigger customer base at 11.2 m against Moneyview's 9.7 m.

This means Kissht is able to convert about 18% of its users into customers, compared with about 8% for Moneyview. The comparison is not strictly like-for-like, as Kissht reports cumulative customers served, while Moneyview reports monetised users.

On share of repeat customers in the AUM (assets under management), Moneyview has a higher share of repeat customers in its AUM, keeping its operational costs lower.

Kissht, on the other hand, is moving the other way. Its share of repeat customers is falling and new customers are growing in the AUM. This could be because of its new product, loan against property.

Revenue

The major sources of revenue for Kissht are interest income, followed by fees on off-book loans, merchant-led and EMI purchase finance, and finally income on loan against property.

The revenue for Kissht grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21.9% primarily due to expansion in AUM. The company added merchant-led, short-term personal loans in 2023, which aided the revenue growth.

Moreover, its vast customer base also helped the company grow the number of loan disbursals, which helped the company grow its interest income.

For Moneyview, the major source of revenue is fees and commissions from its 48 partner NBFC companies. The next major source of revenue is interest income, which it earns via lending.

In the last four years, the company's revenue grew at a CAGR of 55.2% due to higher disbursals, a growing customer base, and high repeat borrowing from customers.

To add to this, the company added new revenue lines by acquiring Zeo Fin and securing an insurance corporate agent license, which also pushed revenue growth.

While both companies are asset-heavy on the growth side, Moneyview's major source of revenue is fees and commissions, whereas Kissht's revenue comes from lending.

Revenue

Profitability

For a digital finance company, profits are earned only by keeping costs low.

Both Kissht and Moneyview have seen their profits grow at a strong rate in the last five years.

For Kissht, the EBITDA and net profit grew at a CAGR of 56.2% and 78.5%, respectively. The primary reason is revenue expansion and the fact that expenses didn't grow as fast as revenue.

To add to this, easing credit costs also aided the profit growth. The profit margin also expanded significantly in the last four years.

For Moneyview, the EBITDA and net profit grew at a CAGR of 87.9% and 10.5%, respectively. Operating costs fell mainly due to a high share of repeat customers in the AUM.

However, the net profit didn't grow at the same rate as the EBITDA, primarily because borrowing costs grew significantly.

While the EBITDA margin expanded, the net profit margin fell on account of rising borrowing costs and higher provisions.

Between the two companies, Kissht has higher profitability than Moneyview.

Profitability

AUM

AUM, or assets under management, shows the total value of the loans the company is managing, reflecting the scale of its lending business.

The AUM for Kissht has grown at a CAGR of 53.6% from Rs 12,679 m to Rs 70,660 m in the last four years. Rising disbursals and a strong distribution network of over 300 retail and e-commerce partnerships have supported the AUM growth.

Moreover, new customers and new products that the company introduced have also contributed to this growth. Also, Kissht's off-book funding is almost 53.4% of its AUM, and rising off-book partner funding is helping the company grow its AUM beyond what its equity supports.

For Moneyview, the AUM rose from Rs 76,440 m to Rs 1,98,148 m, a CAGR of 26.9% in the last four years. Moneyview has 48 NBFC partners, which helped the growth of disbursals and AUM.

To add to this, its own lending via Whizdm Finance is growing at a faster pace, which in turn is helping the AUM grow.

While Kissht has a higher growth in AUM, Moneyview has a higher AUM base.

AUM

Disbursements

Kissht's disbursement growth has been volatile in the last four years.

The disbursements rose to Rs 1,853,110 in FY24 but fell in FY25 primarily due to sector-wide tightening of unsecured loans.

However, since FY25, the company saw a recovery in disbursements due to new customers and the launch of loan against property.

For Moneyview, the disbursements grew steadily at a CAGR of 18.5% in the last four years. The growth comes from a larger user base, rising repeat borrowing, and a network of 48 lending partners handling around 200,000 applications a day.

Clearly, Moneyview has a larger disbursement base and steady growth in disbursements.

Disbursements

Non-Performing Assets (NPA)

A bank marks an asset as a non-performing asset (NPA) if it's not earning interest for more than 90 days. A rising NPA can be a cause of concern as it affects the company's profitability.

The gross NPA and net NPA of Kissht in December 2025 are 2.1% and 0.29%. Given that Kissht is an unsecured lender, we cannot compare the NPAs to any RBI benchmark for banks.

For Moneyview, the gross NPA and net NPA stand at 1.9% and 0.5% in FY25. When compared to Kissht's FY25 figures, Moneyview's asset quality (net NPA) is slightly lower.

Coming to the provision coverage ratio, Kissht has 86.15%, and Moneyview has 75.5%, indicating Kissht has set aside more for provisions than Moneyview.

However, both seem to have sufficient coverage against the RBI mandate of 76%.

Non-Performing Assets

Financial Efficiency

It's important to look at the financial efficiency of a business to understand whether the business is turning its investments into profits.

The 3 ratios we are assessing are return on equity (RoE), return on assets (RoA), and capital adequacy ratio (CAR). RoE and RoA tell how much profit the company earns on one rupee of its equity and total assets. A higher ratio is considered good.

The capital adequacy ratio tells us how much cushion a lender holds against losses; a high ratio is considered better. RBI's mandate for NBFCs is 15%.

The RoE and RoA of Kissht stand at 24% and 7.1% for FY26, against 9.7% and 3% for Moneyview. Higher profits and lower credit costs helped Kissht maintain higher return ratios than Moneyview.

The capital adequacy ratios for Kissht and Moneyview stands at 25.3% and 22.7%, above the minimum of 15% set by the RBI. Moreover, it's not too high, indicating the capital is not underused.

Financial Efficiency

Valuation

Valuation shows how much premium or discount the market is willing to pay for a stock. For lenders like Kissht and Moneyview, it's important to read price-to-earnings (PE) alongside return on equity (ROE), as the lender's worth largely depends on equity and the returns it earns on it.

Kissht trades at a PE of 19.36 against the industry average of 23.84, a discount of about 20%. The share price is up over 87% since its listing, indicating the market has also re-rated it sharply.

As for Moneyview, the shares are yet to list on the exchanges. However, the offer document shows a PE of 21.5, which is also below the industry average. For the IPO price of Rs 34, the PE stands at 17 at the end of June 2026.

Clearly, Kissht commands a higher price for its higher returns, and Moneyview looks cheaper at the IPO price but must be observed if the strong growth can turn into profits.

Management guidance and future growth prospects

Kissht's management has given specific targets for FY27. It expects the AUM to grow over 40% with a 10-15% reduction in impairment cost. It also expects the GNPA to stay below 2.25%.

The company is planning for organic growth. Its secured lending is expected to rise and plans to set up at least 80 more loan-against-property branches by the end of FY27, against 96 in FY26.

Its CRISIL A rating upgrade also helped reduce the marginal borrowing cost by 200 basis points, and another upgrade is also under discussion. Moreover, the company plans to raise fresh capital after its IPO in May 2026.

Moneyview, on the other hand, plans to use the IPO proceeds for fresh disbursals under a default loss guarantee arrangement, and to fund its subsidiary, which is also its lending arm.

It also plans to sell products beyond personal loans, such as home loans, investments, and insurance, to its existing customers.

Which digital products company is better: OnEMI or Moneyview?

Both lending companies have delivered fast growth.

OnEMI has a higher customer base, stronger net profit and AUM growth, and has set aside higher provisions for NPAs. It also generates higher returns on equity and total assets.

Moneyview, on the other hand, has higher revenue, disbursals, and AUM than ONEMI. It also has stronger EBITDA growth, and lower GNPA.

As of now, ONEMI trades slightly ahead of Moneyview. Going ahead, the success of both companies will depend on growing unsecured loans without letting the credit quality slip.

For Kissht, the test would be delivering 40% AUM growth while keeping the GNPA below 2.25% and scaling its loan-against-property business.

For Moneyview, the challenge is turning scale into profit, increasing its partner base, and converting its large user base into customers.

Hence, it is important that you consider your investment goals, risk appetite, and investment horizon along with the company's fundamentals and financials before making any investing decision.

Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only. It is not a stock recommendation and should not be treated as such. Learn more about our recommendation services here...