Stanford FCU posts 4.49% APR on 60-month used auto. Tech CU posts 5.49% APR on the same term. Both values collected 2026-08-15 from posted rate pages, both labeled APR. The difference is 100 basis points.
The Loan Position Table in this issue carries both posted floors and computes no gap between them. What follows is the reason, dimension by dimension, along with the specific evidence that would close each one.
Credit tier and the "as low as" floor
Both rates sit at the bottom of their institution's published range. Stanford's page labels the column "Annual Percentage Fixed Rate As Low As." Tech CU uses no such qualifier, but publishes a range of 5.49% to 15.24% APR for 12–66 month used auto — a span of 976 basis points — which puts 5.49% at the floor rather than anywhere near the middle.
Both institutions require their top credit tier to reach the floor. Neither publishes a score model, a minimum score, or a named tier definition. Tech CU discloses that rate varies by approved credit and term without mapping any borrower profile to 5.49%. Stanford publishes the floor and no upper bound at all.
Treating the two floors as comparable requires assuming that one borrower profile reaches both floors at once. That assumption cannot be confirmed from public sources, and the cost of getting it wrong is unmeasurable, because neither institution publishes the basis-point increments between tiers.
Relationship discount
Stanford's rate page states that the displayed 4.49% APR includes a 1.00% Ambassador Loyalty+ discount. Ambassador status requires an active Stanford checking account plus some combination of direct deposit thresholds, debit-card activity, and additional qualifying relationships. Eligibility is reviewed monthly and must be maintained through the loan term for the discounted rate to continue.
Stanford does not publish the undiscounted top-tier APR. Adding 1.00% back to 4.49% produces 5.49%, which is arithmetic rather than a Stanford-published rate. It also assumes the discount comes off the APR itself. If Stanford instead subtracts from the note rate before computing APR, the undiscounted APR differs from 5.49% by some amount, since APR reflects payment timing and any finance charges beyond the note rate. Public disclosures do not specify the method. [Verify: discount application method]
Tech CU discloses no relationship discount on used auto.
Publicly confirmable: the 1.00% discount exists, Ambassador status has stated requirements, and the posted 4.49% includes the discount. Assumed: direct subtraction from APR, yielding 5.49% undiscounted. Unverifiable from public sources: the actual undiscounted APR.
For a borrower who does not hold Ambassador status, the 100bps narrows toward zero. For a borrower who does, it may approach the full 100bps. Whether the comparison assumes a Stanford relationship borrower or a rate-sheet-only borrower moves the answer more than any other dimension here.
Vehicle eligibility
The two institutions gate the 60-month term differently.
Stanford requires a vehicle under five model years old with fewer than 60,000 miles, a $10,000 minimum loan amount, purchase from a franchise dealer, in the borrower's state. Tech CU requires a vehicle three to ten model years old with a $5,000 minimum, and applies different LTV caps once a vehicle passes seven model years or 100,000 miles.
This dimension yields no basis-point adjustment. A vehicle either qualifies at the posted rate's term or it does not. Four years old with 55,000 miles clears both. Six years old with 65,000 miles fails Stanford's 49–60 month band while remaining eligible at Tech CU, and for that vehicle the comparison is no longer 4.49% against 5.49% — it becomes a Stanford rate at a shorter term or a different band against 5.49%. The set of vehicles eligible at both institutions on identical terms is smaller than either institution's own eligible universe.
Loan-to-value
Both institutions condition pricing on LTV, and both say so publicly. Tech CU states that lower APRs apply below 90% LTV. Stanford states that LTV depends on risk tier. Neither publishes the size of the adjustment or the LTV bands that trigger it.
Normalizing here would mean assuming a common LTV — 80%, say — and applying each institution's adjustment. The assumption is easy; the adjustment is not published. Tech CU does not disclose whether every loan under 90% LTV receives the floor rate or how many basis points separate its LTV tiers. Stanford publishes neither bands nor increments. Effect on the gap: indeterminate. [Verify: LTV adjustment schedules for both institutions]
Fees
Stanford states no application or early-payoff fee. Tech CU states no application fee and no prepayment penalty. Tech CU's fee schedule separately lists a $50 vehicle-title-processing fee per occurrence, without stating whether it applies to a standard franchise-dealer purchase or whether it is already reflected in the posted APR.
If the fee applies and is excluded from APR, the effect on a $10,000 60-month loan is roughly 21bps. If it does not apply, or is already included, the effect is zero. Stanford's treatment of origination and documentation fees is likewise absent from the rate page. [Verify]
Promotional versus standing status
Both rate grids carry effective dates, neither carries sunset language or a promotional label. Under a standing-rate assumption, neither posted rate needs a promotional adjustment.
Stanford's discount complicates this. New Stanford members hold Ambassador status from account opening through the following three full calendar months, roughly 90 to 120 days depending on the opening date. After that, the member meets the ongoing activity and relationship requirements or loses the 1.00%. A borrower who joins Stanford, books a 60-month loan at 4.49% during the initial window, and then falls out of Ambassador status faces a rate adjustment. The grid is standing; the qualification path for a new member is not. Tech CU's grid has no comparable conditional window.
APR label versus APR construction
Both institutions display APR and neither displays a note rate. Matching labels do not establish matching cost bases.
On the Stanford side, the open question is whether the 1.00% discount lands on the APR or on the note rate ahead of the APR calculation, which produce slightly different APRs for the same loan. On the Tech CU side, the open question is whether the $50 title fee, where it applies, is a finance charge inside the posted 5.49% or an excluded charge that pushes the borrower's effective annual cost above it. Regulation Z defines APR as a yearly measure relating value received to payments made, but the posted label alone does not establish how a particular fee or discount was treated. That requires the transaction-level disclosures: amount financed, finance charge, itemized fees.
Exhibit: normalization dimensions and effect on the posted gap
All rates collected 2026-08-15.
| Dimension | Stanford FCU (4.49% APR) | Tech CU (5.49% APR) | Effect on 100bps naive gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relationship discount | Includes 1.00% Ambassador Loyalty+ discount. Undiscounted APR not published. | No relationship discount disclosed on used auto. | Narrows gap by up to 100bps if comparison assumes non-Ambassador borrower. [Verify: discount application method] |
| Credit tier | "As low as" — highest tier required. No score model, cutoff, or tier increments published. | Floor of 976bps published range. Floor tier unidentified. No tier mapping. | Indeterminate. Matched-tier gap cannot be confirmed from public sources. |
| LTV | Depends on risk tier. Bands and adjustments not published. | Lower APR below 90% LTV. Adjustment size not published. | Indeterminate. |
| Vehicle eligibility | <5 model years, <60K miles, $10K min, franchise dealer, in-state. | 3–10 model years, $5K min, mileage/age caps affect LTV and rate. | Binary eligibility gate, not a bps adjustment. Overlap set is a subset of either institution's eligible universe. |
| Fees | No application or early-payoff fee. Origination/doc fee treatment not stated. | No application or prepayment fee. $50 title-processing fee listed separately; APR inclusion unresolved. | 0bps to ~21bps widening of gap (on $10K loan). [Verify] |
| Promotional status | Standing rate grid, no sunset. Ambassador status for new members is temporary (~90–120 days) unless subsequently earned. | Standing rate grid, no sunset or promotional label. | 0bps under standing-rate assumption. |
| APR construction | APR displayed. Discount application to APR vs. note rate unspecified. | APR displayed. Finance-charge composition unresolved. | Same label, potentially different cost basis. |
Per-institution effective rate ranges (from public sources):
- Stanford FCU: 4.49% APR for an Ambassador-qualifying, highest-tier borrower with an eligible vehicle. At least 5.49% APR (assumed) for a non-Ambassador, highest-tier borrower. Higher than 5.49% below the highest tier, with no published upper bound or tier increments.
- Tech CU: 5.49% APR for the floor-tier borrower with qualifying LTV and vehicle. Up to 15.24% APR across the published range. 5.70% or higher if the $50 title-processing fee applies and sits outside the posted APR.
For a matched borrower profile on 60-month used auto, the publicly supportable gap has a lower bound approaching 0bps and an upper bound that could exceed 100bps. Public sources do not collapse it to a point estimate.
Evidence that would close the open dimensions
- Stanford's undiscounted highest-tier APR for 60-month used auto, with confirmation of whether the 1.00% Loyalty+ adjustment applies to APR or to the note rate before APR calculation.
- Tech CU's score model, tier structure, and the APR corresponding to a specified credit profile at a specified LTV.
- Same-day, same-profile quotes from both institutions using identical loan amount, vehicle year, mileage, dealer type, LTV, and relationship status.
- Confirmation of whether Tech CU's $50 title-processing fee applies to a franchise-dealer purchase and whether it is included in the posted APR.
- Borrower-specific Regulation Z disclosures from each institution showing note rate, APR, amount financed, finance charge, and itemized fees for the same transaction.
Until items 1 and 2 are in hand, the Loan Position Table will carry the two posted floors and no computed gap. The HELOC intro-rate comparison elsewhere in this issue ran into the same problem: matching rate labels, unaligned eligibility predicates and cost components underneath.
The subtraction is arithmetically correct, but what it measures is not yet established.
- First Tech term grid: First Tech's public auto page posts a 4.99% "as low as" APR but does not map that rate to a specific term, preventing it from entering the 60-month comparison until a term-specific grid or quote is obtained.
- Provident's undisclosed effective date: Provident's auto rate page rendered a blank effective-date field during the 2026-08-15 collection, leaving its 5.625% used-auto floor without a confirmed currency date.
- Tech CU's financing-cap conflict: The rate detail page states up to 125% of Kelley Blue Book Retail Value for qualifying used vehicles, while the general auto overview says up to 140% of MSRP for vehicles seven years old or less — a discrepancy in both percentage and valuation basis that remains unreconciled.
- Wider peer-set tier mapping: Across all candidate institutions, no public rate page maps a common borrower profile to a specific APR, which means the 60-month used-auto headline diagnostic showing gaps from +10bps to +100bps remains outside assertion grade for every peer, not only Stanford.