Own Up review
Own Up is a Mortgage Lead Generation product from RateGravity Inc.. MortgageTechReview scores Own Up 2.2 out of 5.0, ranking Own Up #28 of the 34 products tracked in Mortgage Lead Generation Software, as of August 11, 2026. Scores on MortgageTechReview are weighted across five axes and are never paid for or influenced by a vendor relationship.
Own Up operates as RateGravity Inc. under NMLS #1450805, sitting between the borrower and a lender panel. It pairs live rate comparison with human advisors who help the borrower weigh offers. Published partners include Rocket Mortgage, Mutual of Omaha, New American Funding, NBKC and Rate.com. Those lenders pay the compensation. The appeal over a raw lead marketplace: the borrower arrives screened and advised, so the conversation starts further along. The advisor's stated loyalty is to the borrower, and the site advertises average savings of $28,000 per loan. Like every comparison model, it invites you in to be shopped on price.
How Own Up compares to Homebot
Ranked first in LEADSHomebot currently scores highest in LEADS, so every other product in the category is compared against it here. That is a ranking on our published rubric rather than a recommendation, and it changes when the scores change. Category Leader
| Axis | Own Up | Homebot |
|---|---|---|
| Production impact | 2.3 | 4.8 |
| Functionality & depth | 2.1 | 4.4 |
| Integrations & ecosystem | 1.6 | 4.4 |
| Adoption & support | 2.6 | 4.9 |
| Return on spend | 2.3 | 4.9 |
| Overall | 2.2 | 4.7 |
Own Up wins 0 of 5 axes against Homebot, on the weight profile published for this category. Full head-to-head →
Where it wins
- Advisors work the borrower first, so you get an informed, better-qualified contact
- The site plainly states its legal entity, NMLS number, compensation model and panel
- Publishes its lender panel, from Rocket Mortgage to NBKC, so you see the competition
- No implementation work, since the whole experience runs on Own Up's side
Where it falls short
- No published pricing or partner terms of any kind
- Borrower-aligned by design, so its incentive is finding a cheaper offer than yours
- Smaller consumer reach than big comparison sites, so volume potential is limited
- Batch data listed Experian as owner; the site still shows only RateGravity Inc.
Why it scores 2.2
Scored on the Lead Gen & Retention weight profile. The number shows where it sits in this category. It rests on evidence anyone can check, including the vendor's own record. The weights →
Production impact
40% of scoreReferral volume is small next to the big comparison sites, and the advisor model is what caps it. Every borrower has a real conversation with a person first, so throughput is bounded by how many advisors Own Up staffs. Files that do arrive are better prepared, and contact and conversion run higher on them. That is the trade. A lender that needs to turn volume up on demand cannot do it here.
Functionality and depth
10% of scoreThe consumer tooling is competent. Affordability math, live rate comparison across the panel, preapproval letters that update on demand. None of it is yours. Lender-facing functionality is close to none, because this is a channel rather than a system you operate. There is nothing to configure and nothing left behind. Judged as a product a lender buys and runs, that sits near the bottom of the category.
Integrations and ecosystem
15% of scoreNothing is published about connections to lender systems, and the model gives little reason to build any. No LOS, no CRM and no point-of-sale link is named anywhere on the site. Handoffs happen however the commercial arrangement specifies, which means a person or a file rather than a connection. There is nothing here for a buyer to examine.
Adoption and support
10% of scoreThere is nothing for a lender team to adopt beyond a phone process for taking referrals. The relationship is managed commercially, not through a product. The advisor layer does absorb the education work a loan officer would otherwise do on a cold rate shopper, and that is real. Whether it is worth the compensation cannot be checked, because no terms are published at any level.
Return on spend
25% of scoreBetter-qualified referrals justify a higher price than a shared lead. That is the entire argument, and no published terms let a buyer test it. The advisor is aligned to the borrower by design, and the site advertises average savings of $28,000 per loan. Those savings come out of somebody’s margin. You pay to be shopped, on a premise you cannot verify before entering the conversation.
On price. Free to the borrower, undisclosed to the lender. The site states plainly that Own Up receives compensation from the third-party advertisers whose offers appear. That is the extent of the public detail. Ask how the fee is metered: per referral, per lock, per funded loan, or something else. Each shape produces a very different cost per closing.
