AVM vs desktop vs physical.
Three valuation types, one routing decision. How confidence thresholds decide which case goes where.
The three valuation types are not rivals - they are the tiers of one routing decision, and the confidence level chooses the tier.
The automated value carries high confidence for the loan-to-value and policy at hand. Fastest and cheapest; appropriate where the evidence is strong and the range is tight.
A valuer reviews the case remotely, using data plus their judgement, without visiting. The middle option in cost and speed - for cases the data alone does not quite settle.
A valuer inspects the property. The most thorough, the slowest and the most expensive - reserved for the cases where confidence is genuinely low or the property demands eyes on it.
The decision is a triage.
Every lender runs the same triage: which cases can be decided on data, which need a desktop, and which need someone on the doorstep. The three valuation types are not competitors - they are the tiers of a routing decision, and the job is sending each case to the right one.
Confidence is the routing input.
What decides the tier is the confidence level on the automated value, read against your loan-to-value thresholds and policy. High confidence routes to data, medium to a desktop, low to a physical valuation. Set the thresholds where your current process declines, then measure what a confidence-scored view recovers.
Cost and risk trade off against each other.
Sending everything to a physical valuation is safe and expensive; sending everything to an AVM is cheap and risky. Confidence-based routing spends the survey budget where it buys the most certainty and lets the strong cases move at data speed - defensibly, because the basis for each route is published.
Set the thresholds on your own book.
Bring the cases your current data declines. We show where a confidence-scored view lets you decide on data - and where it routes to people.