Why the word "integration" is doing so much work
Filogix Exchange is the rail most of the Canadian broker channel submits through. Almost every platform in this market claims to integrate with it, and almost every one of those claims is technically true.
The claims are not equivalent. In practice "Filogix integration" describes at least four arrangements that behave nothing like each other once your team is inside them all day, and the gap between the weakest and the strongest is the difference between a system of record and a data-entry job with extra steps.
The weakest version is an export you run and import somewhere else. Then a one-way push, automatic but blind to anything your team does downstream. Then two-way sync on a chosen subset of fields, which sounds like the real thing right up to the moment you discover the field your process depends on is not in the subset. Only the fourth version — both directions, broad coverage, and a defined rule for what happens when the same field changes in two places — actually lets people work in either system.
We have written that distinction up in full in what "two-way integration" actually means. It is the single most useful question to put to any vendor in this category, including us.
How ours is designed
The sync pulls the current state of a deal from Filogix and compares it with ours field by field. Not just the headline fields — name, amount, status — but the repeating sections underneath them, which is where subset integrations quietly stop: each borrower's employment, income, assets and liabilities, their owned properties, and the mortgages on those properties.
Where the two sides agree, nothing happens. Where they differ, the difference is shown as a specific field with both values side by side. Edits made in Mortgage360 are pushed back to Filogix rather than left to drift.
Field count is the number vendors like to quote, and on its own it is close to meaningless. What matters is whether the fields YOUR process depends on are covered, which is a question about your workflow rather than about the integration. So the useful test is to bring your own edge cases to a demo and ask to see how each one is mapped and compared.
Conflict resolution is the part that is hard
Any competent team can move a field from A to B. What separates integrations that survive a year from the ones your staff quietly stop trusting is what happens when the same field has changed in both systems.
Our approach is not to pick a winner silently. A divergence is surfaced as a conflict with both values visible, and someone on your team chooses: keep ours, take Filogix's, or enter a corrected value. The resolution is written to both sides, and every pull, push and resolution is logged with who did it and when.
That last part matters more than it sounds. Silent overwrites are how a team learns not to trust a sync — not through a dramatic failure, but through someone noticing once that a correction they made had reverted, and thereafter double-checking everything by hand. At which point you own the cost of the integration and none of the benefit.
What this means for how you work
Your underwriting team can keep using Filogix. Your client-facing work — pipeline, follow-up, documents, renewals, compliance — runs in the Mortgage360 CRM. The point of the sync is that the data stays consistent between them and nobody re-keys it.
That is deliberately a smaller claim than "replace Filogix". Exchange is your lender connectivity and we are not proposing you leave it. What is genuinely in question is Filogix Expert, the surface your team sits in all day, which is a much lower-risk decision than it first appears precisely because the submission rail does not move.
The ownership change, and what it does not change
On 4 August 2026, Dominion Lending Centres Group announced it had acquired Filogix from Finastra for $58.5 million. DLC already owned Newton Connectivity Systems, which operates Velocity, so both dominant submission rails now sit under one owner for the first time.
For the plumbing, that changes nothing: Exchange behaves as it did, and nothing about how our sync is designed depends on who owns it. DLC has said Filogix will run as a standalone subsidiary with operational independence from Newton. We take that at face value.
What it does change is the governance question sitting underneath. The rail is no longer owned by a disinterested enterprise software vendor; it is owned by a broker network that competes for agents with every other network in Canada. That is not an accusation, and it obliges nobody to move. It does make it worth knowing exactly how portable your own data is — which is a question you should have been able to answer anyway. We have written up what was announced and what it left unsaid, including the questions worth putting to us.
What to ask any vendor, us included
- How many fields, in which directions, and at what latency?
- What happens when the same field changes in both systems before a sync?
- Is the resolution logged, and can I see the log?
- Which of MY edge-case fields are covered? Bring three and make them demonstrate it.
- What is connected to Filogix for a brokerage like mine today, and what is still being built?
- If I leave, what does my data export look like, and what does it cost?
A vendor that has genuinely built this will answer all six plainly. A vendor running a nightly export will answer the first one enthusiastically and get vaguer with each subsequent question, which is itself the answer.
Ask us the same questions
Book a demo and bring three fields your process depends on. We will show you how each is mapped, how a divergence is surfaced and what the resolution log records — and you should ask us the fifth question above as directly as you would ask anyone else.
Spotted an error, or a rule that has changed since this was written? Email hello@mortgage360.ai. How we write and check these articles.