Beazley vs
CFC: How Do They Compare for Business Insurance?
Technology firms can compare Beazley MediaTech’s combined technology, media and cyber cover with CFC’s separate technology and intellectual-property products.
An Overview of Beazley and CFC
A small software company agreeing to indemnify a customer for intellectual-property claims should compare the allegation, exclusions and contract wording: Beazley MediaTech combines technology, media and cyber, while CFC lists a technology package and separate IP coverage. 1 22 34 Choose Beazley MediaTech if the combined technology, media and cyber form fits; choose CFC if you need its broader technology package or separate IP product.
What Stands Out About Beazley and CFC?
Beazley at a Glance
- MediaTech combines technology E&O, media liability and cyber coverage. 1US small-business MediaTech marketing; maximum is advertised capacity, not a guaranteed quote.
- Execuguard lets eligible buyers choose separate or shared limits for executive risks. 10US Execuguard; no assertion every coverage is included in every quote.
CFC at a Glance
- Eligible technology businesses can combine E&O, cyber, media/IP and general liability. 22CFC US-facing materials, accessed 16 September 2026; company descriptions, not an issued policy or independent service assessment.
- Cyber policyholders may get threat monitoring, alerts and 24/7 incident support. 27CFC US-facing materials, accessed 16 September 2026; company descriptions, not an issued policy or independent service assessment.
Beazley vs CFC Coverage Lines Compared
A listing may be arranged through an insurer or partner. “Not listed” means we have no separate offering page for it; ask the provider whether it can quote the coverage and request the policy terms.
Beazley and CFC Coverage, Line by Line
Open what Beazley and CFC each publish for one coverage line.
Commercial Property Insurance
Crime Insurance
Cyber Insurance
D&O Insurance
Employment Practices Liability Insurance
Fiduciary Liability Insurance
General Liability Insurance
Management Liability Insurance
Media Liability Insurance
Product Liability Insurance
Product Recall Insurance
Professional Liability (E&O) Insurance
Representations and Warranties Insurance
Tech E&O Insurance
Telehealth Insurance
Beazley and CFC Review Scores for 2026
These averages can combine ratings for different products, locations, and customer groups, including approximate BBB grade conversions. Read each review for its sources, what it covers and how the score is calculated.
Beazley Review Score
Review Score
1 rated source
Beazley’s available customer feedback is mixed, with a 2.8/5 WalletHub rating from 15 reviews. That small, mixed-product sample gives business buyers limited guidance.
Read Beazley reviewsCFC Review Score
Review Score
No reviews found
The reviewed sources did not yield customer reviews of CFC; the available survey concerns UK brokers. The one rating we found is from UK brokers: 4.76 out of 5 in Insurance Times’ 2024/25 survey.
Read CFC reviewsKey Differences Between Beazley and CFC
Public Sample Wording Is a Warning to Inspect the Current Form
Beazley’s linked MediaTech sample is dated February 2019 and contains patent and certain trade-secret exclusions, contractual-liability restrictions and retroactive-date provisions. Those details make it useful for identifying questions, but not for declaring the wording of a policy offered today. Request the current specimen and endorsements before concluding that a customer’s IP obligation is covered or excluded. 3 5
CFC separately markets intellectual-property insurance beyond the media/IP description in its technology brochure. That creates another product to investigate, not permission to import the standalone IP product’s features into the technology package. Ask whether patent defense, enforcement and contractual indemnities require distinct coverage. 34 22
Application Notices Can Change How a Limit Should Be Read
Beazley advertises MediaTech limits up to $5 million. Its posted Digital Media Tech application states that liability is claims-made and reported and that claims expenses reduce the liability limit and are subject to retentions. Those application notices warrant explicit confirmation in a current quote; an advertised limit is not necessarily all available for damages after defense expense. 1 2
CFC’s application gathers products, services, contracts, revenue and claims information through a broker. Use the same operational description for both submissions, then compare defense-cost treatment, reporting conditions and prior-acts provisions in the offered policies. The CFC brochure alone does not settle those terms. 23 22
Adjacent Cyber and Executive Products Are Not Automatic Package Benefits
Beazley’s small-business Full Spectrum Cyber page describes security and response services, with a broker quote route scoped to that cyber product. Its criteria should not be transferred to MediaTech. CFC markets a response proposition, but the buyer should still obtain the service entitlement for the proposed technology contract. 9 27
Beazley’s Execuguard offers shared or separate executive-risk limits with admitted and non-admitted options. That is not proof of California acceptance. CFC’s reviewed US management offering expressly declines California-domiciled business. A founder needing board protection should obtain a separate, eligible proposal rather than regard either technology package as a complete fundraising program. 10 31
What Should You Confirm in Beazley and CFC Quotes?
- What current form and endorsements govern patent, trade-secret and contractual-indemnity claims, and is separate IP insurance required?
- Do defense expenses reduce limits, what retroactive date applies, and when must a claim or circumstance be reported?
- Which California producer, insurer and placement route apply, and which response services or executive policies are separately purchased?
Beazley vs CFC Services Compared
What each provider says about the services you may need
Sources for Beazley vs CFC
Comparisons Related to Beazley vs CFC
AIG describes commercial solutions across several business sizes; Beazley markets MediaTech to small technology and business-services firms through broker and platform routes.
CFC describes specialist technology underwriting and cyber-response services through an MGA route; AIG lists broader commercial options submitted through brokers and agents.
For a technology startup with one dominant customer, compare Alliance Risk's contract review with Beazley's MediaTech renewal materials.




