Insurance quote comparison that lines up every carrier's terms, each one cited to the quote page
A side-by-side in minutes, every difference traced to the quote page.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software that reads the quotes carriers send back for one account and lines their terms up side by side — premium, limits, sublimits, retentions, exclusions and subjectivities — so a broker can recommend fairly. Insurance Quote Comparison adds agents that read every quote, declarations page and endorsement, cite each value to its page, and flag the values that only look equal.
How to choose AI solutions for insurance →
Updated
A commercial account goes to market and five carriers answer in five layouts: declarations, a schedule of sublimits, and a forms list of 11 to 14 endorsements each. The terms that change the cover — a coinsurance clause, a new exclusion, a retention that applies per insuring agreement — sit in endorsements named only by number on the schedule.
So the side-by-side is built by hand in a spreadsheet. Values are retyped without their source, and one “limit” row hides whether the limit is each claim, an aggregate, or shared with first-party cover. The client sees the lowest premium first. If the cheaper quote does not meet a contract requirement, the gap is found at claim time — as an E&O claim against the broker. And subjectivities are tracked in email. Miss one, such as an EDR attestation, and the carrier can cancel a policy already bound.
Estimated split for a five-carrier cyber renewal, by hand and with the solution, in hours.
Six agents read every quote and form and flag the terms that only look equal; the account executive decides.
Tollbridge Partners is renewing Meridale Health Billing Services for cyber and privacy liability, effective Sun 1 Nov — 20 days out. Five quotes are in. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Audrey opens the Meridale renewal: expiring with Larkspur at $186,400, $5M with a $100,000 retention, the proposal meeting Thu 15 Oct at 10:00. Five carrier columns carry rank, paper, total cost, change against expiring and a “meets n of 6” bar. Bramwell Indemnity is the cheapest at $171,900, down 7.8%.
“Ranked on the 6 pinned rows, then total cost. Pin any row to rank on it.”
The quote reader took 25 terms from each quote — 125 cells, each with its page. The forms and endorsements reader opened 61 of 61 forms and found four that change a term the schedules do not show, NG-CY 114 among them. The like-for-like checker marked three cells, and the subjectivities tracker listed 17 conditions, 7 already met by documents on file.
“A value the agents could not find on a page reads ‘not stated’; nothing is filled from memory or from another carrier’s quote.”
Six requirements, read from three documents and the expiring policy: $5,000,000 privacy liability each claim from the St. Aldric MSA §11.3(b); regulatory defense of $2,000,000 or more and breach response of $1,000,000 or more from the Harrow Valley BAA §7.2; ransomware at full limit with no coinsurance and a retention of $150,000 or less from the board risk memo; prior acts back to 1 Nov 2019 from the expiring policy.
Bramwell's privacy liability cell reads $5,000,000 like everyone else's, but it is amber. Audrey opens it and sees both passages side by side under the St. Aldric clause. Larkspur pays $5,000,000 each claim from a liability aggregate of its own; Bramwell has one $5,000,000 aggregate for all loss under all insuring agreements combined.
The checker compares the wording and states the difference. It does not decide; the account executive does.
She marks the cell “Does not meet”. Bramwell drops from second to fourth, now 5 of 6 met with 1 short, and its cell reads “Not met: wording differs”. Northgate moves up to second; two amber cells are left to decide.
Northgate's ransomware cell reads full limit on the schedule, but endorsement NG-CY 114 adds 20% coinsurance above $1,000,000. One click drafts the email to Rafael Quintero at Northgate: will they delete NG-CY 114, with the endorsement wording quoted and an answer asked for by Wed 14 Oct.
“Drafted by the proposal writer with the passage quoted. Nothing goes to a carrier until you send it.”
Every cell opens the quote page it came from. In Northgate's quote, NG-CY 114 · Cyber Extortion Coinsurance sits on page 37, the passage highlighted and a margin note tying it to the ransomware row. The page list shows only the pages the agents used, and the quote's 11 forms are all opened.
The expiring policy against the renewal quote: 22 terms compared, 6 changed. Premium up 9.8% to $204,750, retention $100,000 to $150,000 each claim, waiting period 8 to 10 hours, dependent business interruption doubled to $2,000,000 — and a new exclusion, LSC 2291, for tracking technologies, which matters because the payment portal uses analytics tags.
Each carrier's conditions, due before binding or within 30 days after, matched to documents on file: the MFA attestation of 22 Sep meets three quotes. One is blocked — Northgate needs EDR on 100% of endpoints confirmed in writing, and Meridale is at 402 of 414, with the last 12 on Tue 20 Oct. Northgate's quote must bind by Fri 23 Oct.
The subjectivities tracker never confirms a bind or tells the client they are bound.
The proposal writer drafts it for Renee Okafor, CFO: renew with Larkspur at $204,750, the only quote that meets all six requirements; Northgate is the alternative if it deletes NG-CY 114; Bramwell, the lowest premium, does not give St. Aldric $5,000,000 per claim. Every figure carries a citation. Audrey approves it, Graham co-signs it, and Renee chooses the carrier at the meeting on Thu 15 Oct at 10:00.
“This comparison summarises the carriers’ quotes; the policy wording governs.”
The same Meridale renewal, seen by the five people who carry it — from the account executive to the CFO who chooses.
Six agents read every quote and form and flag the terms that only look equal; the account executive decides.
Reads each carrier's quote, declarations and schedule and fills every cell of the comparison with its value, its basis — each claim, aggregate, sublimit, per insuring agreement, within or outside the limit — and its page.
Opens every form on each schedule — 61 of 61 for Meridale — and finds the ones that change a limit, retention, coinsurance, exclusion or date, such as NG-CY 114 and LSC 2291.
Compares the wording behind equal-looking values: each claim or aggregate, separate or shared aggregate, one retention per event or per insuring agreement, coinsurance, within or outside the limit. Marks the cell amber and states the difference with both passages.
Reads the client's contracts, memos and the expiring policy, writes each requirement as a test on a row with its clause, pins the row, and ranks the carriers on pinned rows, then total cost including taxes.
Lists every subjectivity in each quote with its timing, matches documents on file and reuses one document for every carrier it satisfies, then drafts a single request to the client for what is open.
Drafts the client proposal in plain words for a CFO — the recommendation, the viable options and what each gives up, what changes from this year, what is needed to bind — under the proposal standard and disclaimer.
Decides amber cells; producer co-signs the proposal. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask in plain words. Every answer cites the quote page, the form or the clause it comes from — and anything sent to a carrier or the client waits for you.
Why is Bramwell not recommended when it is the cheapest?
Bramwell's $171,900 is the lowest premium, and its schedule shows $5,000,000 for privacy liability like the others. But the wording makes that one aggregate for all cover combined, ransomware and business interruption included. Larkspur states $5,000,000 each claim under a liability aggregate of its own. St. Aldric's contract asks for $5,000,000 per claim.
What would NG-CY 114 cost Meridale in a ransomware event?
NG-CY 114 makes Meridale carry 20% of any extortion loss above $1,000,000. On a $3,000,000 event: 20% of $2,000,000 is $400,000, plus the $100,000 retention, so $500,000 in all. With Larkspur the same event costs the $150,000 retention. The board memo asks for no coinsurance.
Which subjectivities could stop us binding by 1 Nov?
One is blocked: Northgate needs written confirmation of EDR on 100% of endpoints before binding, and Meridale is at 402 of 414, with the last 12 due Tue 20 Oct. Northgate's quote also expires Fri 23 Oct. Larkspur needs only the signed application before binding; the MFA attestation already meets three carriers.
What changed in Larkspur's renewal?
Premium $186,400 → $204,750 (+9.8%); retention $100,000 → $150,000 each claim; waiting period 8 → 10 hours; dependent business interruption up to $2,000,000; and a new exclusion, LSC 2291, for pixels and tracking tags, which matters because Meridale's payment portal uses analytics tags.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
What counts as not like-for-like, how carriers rank and who signs are settings, owned by the placement and E&O lead.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Each claim against aggregate | On | On · Off |
| Separate against shared aggregate | On | On · Off |
| Per event against per insuring agreement | On | On · Off |
| Coinsurance in an endorsement | On | On · Off |
| Rows compared, cyber | 25 rows in 5 sections | Rows per line of business |
| Rank on pinned rows first | On, then total cost incl. taxes and fees | On · Off |
| E&O lead signs off | When the recommended quote has an open amber cell | Required · Conditional |
| Surplus lines tax | By state of the insured — Ohio 5.00% | Ohio · Indiana · Kentucky · Michigan · Pennsylvania |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample renewal · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (Big “I” Claims Advisor, Swiss Re agency E&O claims 2003–2009 — about one in four claims from failing to procure the coverage requested; CopyCat, time per account, vendor model — 30 min to 2 h for simple accounts). The brokerage, the client, its customers, the five carriers and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that reads the quotes carriers send back for one account and lines their terms up side by side — premium, limits, sublimits, retentions, exclusions and subjectivities — so a broker can recommend fairly. Insurance Quote Comparison adds agents that read every quote, declarations page and endorsement, cite each value to its page, and flag the values that only look equal.
The like-for-like checker compares the wording behind equal-looking values: each claim against aggregate, separate against shared aggregate, one retention per event against per insuring agreement, coinsurance in an endorsement, and within against outside the limit. When they differ it marks the cell amber and shows both passages. The account executive decides whether it counts as met.
Not on premium alone. Carriers are ranked on the client's pinned requirements first — each traced to a contract clause, memo or the expiring policy — then on total cost including taxes and fees. A non-admitted quote's total includes surplus lines tax, such as Ohio's 5%.
No. Emails to underwriters and requests to the client are drafts until a person sends them, and the agents cannot bind or tell the client they are bound. The account executive approves the proposal and the producer co-signs it.
The subjectivities tracker lists each quote's conditions with their timing — before binding or within 30 days after — matches documents already on file, reuses one document for every carrier it satisfies, and drafts one request to the client for what is open.
Yes. The renewal view sets the expiring policy against the renewal quote term by term, with both passages for each change — in the Meridale case, 22 terms compared and 6 changed, including a new tracking technologies exclusion found in the forms list.
Yes. The account executive decides every amber cell, the recommendation and the questions to carriers; the producer co-signs; the client chooses the carrier. The E&O lead owns the proposal standard and signs off when a recommended quote has an open amber cell.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your proposal standard, the rows you compare per line of business and a sample of past quotes — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one of your own renewals first.
Out-of-appetite submissions cut, every market tied to its guide page.
1-min demoBroker Submission AutomationClient data keyed once, not once per carrier; submissions out same day.
1-min demoInsurance Policy CheckingEvery policy checked on arrival, each difference cited before it is a claim.
1-min demoWe’ll run Insurance Quote Comparison on the quotes from one of your own recent renewals.