Get Started

Spot Score: Provider Reliability and Our Method

How Spot evaluates documented reliability for a stated insurance role, activity and jurisdiction.

Current Broker Rankings

Brokers place business rather than carry it, so they are scored on their own criteria and ranked only against each other. Expand a row for scope, included factors and coverage.

  1. #1

    Beazley

    Hybrid provider

    6.8/ 10

    Beazley's US activity at the named-entity level: Beazley USA Services, Inc. as the US insurance-services and producer entity, and Beazley Insurance Company, Inc., Beazley America Insurance Company, Inc. and Beazley Excess and Surplus Insurance, Inc. as the US insurers named in the US terms and ratings table. Authority and authorisation are verified in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only. No Beazley US programme has an evidenced carrier or reinsurance panel: the reviewed material maps no product to an issuing entity, so capacity is assessed at entity authorisation level and no programme-level capacity claim is made. Beazley plc group evidence is contextual, and Lloyd's syndicate ratings are excluded from the US entity assessment.

    Assessed · 30% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority30% of the rubric2.71/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric
    The available disclosures do not sufficiently establish the relevant entity, product and responsibility boundaries.
    Read Beazley’s Assessment
  2. #2

    Coalition

    Hybrid provider

    6.3/ 10

    Coalition's US cyber and technology-errors-and-omissions activity at the named-entity level. Producer, surplus-lines, Texas managing-general-agency and Texas adjuster authority is verified for Coalition Insurance Solutions, Inc. in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only. Capacity is assessed for two named programmes and no others. For the admitted cyber programme, the issuer is Coalition Insurance Company, NAIC 29530, whose Georgia, Texas and Pennsylvania authorisations are verified, whose appointment of Coalition Insurance Solutions is recorded in Texas and Pennsylvania, and whose AM Best A- rating was affirmed in March 2024; the reinsurance panel behind it is undisclosed. For the Coalition Re programme of cyber reinsurance treaties and white-labelled cover, the capacity panel is led by Aspen on Coalition's own statement; that evidence reaches Coalition Re only and not the carrier's paper. The non-admitted cyber and executive-risk programmes, which Coalition places with unaffiliated insurers, have no evidenced panel and are not assessed. Coalition Incident Response, Inc. is a separate security-services entity and is out of scope.

    Assessed · 75% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority30% of the rubric3.01/4
    • Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric2.2/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.28/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Coalition’s Assessment
  3. #3

    Corgi

    Hybrid provider

    6.0/ 10

    Corgi Insurance Services, Inc. as producer and programme administrator, verified active in Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only, with Corgi Insurance Company, Inc. and Technology Risk Retention Group, Inc. as the separately disclosed risk-bearing entities. Capacity is assessed for three named channels and no others: coverages written on Corgi Insurance Company's own paper, where Georgia admitted and Pennsylvania surplus-lines authorisations are verified; coverages written by Technology Risk Retention Group, an Arizona-domiciled RRG registered in Georgia; and Pennsylvania placements with the three Employers-group carriers appointed to the producer entity. The unnamed partner carriers referenced in Corgi's disclaimer, and the carriers behind Corgi business in every other state, are not assessed. The Georgia producer identifier Corgi publishes did not resolve and is outside verified scope.

    Assessed · 75% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority30% of the rubric3.04/4
    • Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric2.02/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric1.9/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Corgi’s Assessment
  4. #4

    RiskCube

    Broker

    5.9/ 10

    RiskCube Insurance Services, LLC as the producer/broker and RiskCube, Inc. as platform/operational support. RiskCube’s own disclosures say it is not a carrier and does not underwrite; third-party carrier and policy-specific issuer remain outside the generic brand scope.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.34/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read RiskCube’s Assessment
  5. #5

    Alliance Risk

    Broker

    5.8/ 10

    Alliance Risk Insurance Services LLC, the subsidiary agency named in Alliance's terms and the single licensee of record under National Producer Number 21240567, assessed as a brokerage and risk-advisory operation. Producer authority is independently verified in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada and Minnesota only; the other 44 jurisdictions in the published table remain company-reported. Carrier relationships are assessed only as the appointments recorded in Texas, Nevada and Pennsylvania, which do not establish the insurer for any particular placement. Alliance Risk Holding Company LLC and any programme-specific capacity are outside scored scope.

    Assessed · 75% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority30% of the rubric2.67/4
    • Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric2.08/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.03/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Alliance Risk’s Assessment
  6. #6

    Layr

    Broker

    5.6/ 10

    Layr Holdings, Inc. as a broker-facing insurance technology and licensed support/agency operation, with the platform's broker-of-record and commission workflow; no carrier underwriting or policyholder-surplus role is included.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.24/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Layr’s Assessment
  7. #6

    Lockton

    Broker

    5.6/ 10

    Lockton's U.S. brokerage presentation, including Lockton Companies, LLC d/b/a Lockton Insurance Brokers, LLC and Lockton, Inc. as named in reviewed U.S. materials; scope is commercial placement and claims advocacy and does not identify a quote-specific risk-bearing insurer.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.22/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Lockton’s Assessment
  8. #6

    Marsh

    Broker

    5.6/ 10

    US Marsh brokerage legal entities evidenced in the current Marsh client compensation guide, together with the Marsh Risk business and its International Placement and Bermuda arm as Marsh presents them in its own facility announcements for US-based buyers. Marsh USA LLC's separate Amazon affinity-programme role and its dated producer disclosure are scoped only to that programme. Producer authority is independently verified for Marsh USA LLC in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana and Minnesota only; every other jurisdiction remains company-reported. The assessed activity is insurance brokerage, client advisory, claims advocacy and the facility-level carrier and capacity arrangements Marsh publishes for US placements; Marsh McLennan Agency, Victor, insurers, reinsurers and non-US affiliates are excluded from scored scope, and the issuing insurer for an individual buyer's placement is not assessed.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority30% of the rubric2.31/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.12/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Marsh’s Assessment
  9. #9

    Gallagher

    Broker

    5.5/ 10

    Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, LLC and the Gallagher brokerage activity evidenced by the current US small-business and technology materials, excluding Gallagher's carrier, claims-administration and unrelated group entities unless a policy or service relationship is specifically named.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.19/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Gallagher’s Assessment
  10. #9

    HUB International

    Broker

    5.5/ 10

    HUB International Limited and relevant U.S. subsidiaries as a commercial insurance broker and consulting group for U.S. technology and middle-market property-casualty placements; no specific HUB office, producer entity or policy issuer is assigned from group-level pages.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.18/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read HUB International’s Assessment
  11. #11

    Risklytics

    Broker

    5.4/ 10

    Risklytics, Inc. dba Risklytics Insurance Services as a US insurance producer/broker serving technology and specialty risks through the licensed producer operation identified on its current official website; no carrier or underwriting role is included.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority30% of the rubric2.2/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.05/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Risklytics’s Assessment
  12. #12

    Founder Shield

    Broker

    5.3/ 10

    Foundershield LLC/Founder Shield brokerage activity and the separate The Baldwin Group Specialty Solutions, LLC entity named by the website terms. No insurer, carrier solvency or policy-specific issuer is assigned to the brokerage.

    Assessed · 40% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric2.18/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.01/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Read Founder Shield’s Assessment
  13. #12

    Hiscox

    Hybrid provider

    5.3/ 10

    Hiscox US small-business activity at the named-entity level: Hiscox Inc. as online intermediary/general agent and Hiscox Insurance Company Inc. as the named admitted insurer for Hiscox NOW products; Hiscox Ltd. and Lloyd's capacity are group or product-specific context, not a universal issuer mapping.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric2.07/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.24/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Hiscox’s Assessment
  14. #12

    Relm Insurance

    Hybrid provider

    5.3/ 10

    Relm Insurance Ltd.'s Bermuda-domiciled regulated insurance activity and Relm US Insurance Solutions Inc.'s separately licensed US producer/MGA and surplus-lines activity for emerging-industry risks. The Bermuda carrier, US intermediary and external fronting carriers are kept distinct; no US carrier status is assigned to Relm US Insurance Solutions Inc.

    Assessed · 75% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority30% of the rubric2.2/4
    • Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric2.02/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.16/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Relm Insurance’s Assessment
  15. #12

    USI Insurance Services

    Broker

    5.3/ 10

    USI Insurance Services LLC and its U.S. brokerage and risk-consulting operation for property-casualty, technology, executive, employee-benefit and related commercial risks; the evidence covers placement and claims-support roles and does not identify USI as a risk-bearing insurer.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.13/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read USI Insurance Services’s Assessment
  16. #16

    At-Bay

    Hybrid provider

    5.2/ 10

    At-Bay Insurance Services LLC as producer/broker and At-Bay Specialty Insurance Company as a Delaware-based E&S carrier, with issuer evidence limited to Cyber and Tech E&O policies announced as issuing on its own paper beginning August 7, 2023.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.07/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read At-Bay’s Assessment
  17. #16

    Pie Insurance

    Hybrid provider

    5.2/ 10

    Pie Insurance Services, Inc. as producer/administrator; The Pie Insurance Company and Pie Casualty Insurance Company as separately named P&C entities. This review does not assign Pie Casualty to a product without product-specific evidence and does not treat Pie Group Holdings, Inc. as an insurer.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority30% of the rubric2.13/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.03/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Pie Insurance’s Assessment
  18. #18

    Amelia Risk

    Broker

    5.1/ 10

    Amelia Risk Insurance Brokers as the brokerage brand and operating name evidenced on its current official website, with US startup, technology, consumer-product and CPG brokerage activity; no insurer or underwriting entity is included.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.03/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Amelia Risk’s Assessment
  19. #18

    Coverdash

    Broker

    5.1/ 10

    Coverdash Insurance Services, LLC as the licensed broker/agent and Coverdash, Inc. as the technology/brand entity. The cited materials do not identify Coverdash as insurer or underwriting entity; policy issuer remains product and policy specific.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.05/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Coverdash’s Assessment
  20. #18

    Embroker

    Broker

    5.1/ 10

    Embroker, Inc. and Embroker Insurance Services LLC as a U.S. digital insurance platform and producer; product-specific insurers include Everspan Indemnity Insurance Company and Everest National Insurance Company for named programs, not the entire catalogue.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric2/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.09/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Embroker’s Assessment
  21. #21

    ERGO NEXT Insurance

    Hybrid provider

    5.0/ 10

    ERGO NEXT Insurance brand and the named carrier and agency entities in its current terms and license disclosures, including Next Insurance US Company, State National Insurance Company, National Specialty Insurance Company, Next Insurance, Inc. and Next First Insurance Agency, Inc.; the reviewed carrier rating and Mississippi authority are limited to Next Insurance US Company.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority30% of the rubric1.98/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.04/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read ERGO NEXT Insurance’s Assessment
  22. #21

    Heffernan Insurance Brokers

    Broker

    5.0/ 10

    Heffernan Insurance Brokers retail brokerage and Heffernan Network Insurance Brokers subsidiary/service activity. Neither is treated as a carrier or generic policy issuer; the contracting producer must be identified for a specific placement.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric1.99/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Heffernan Insurance Brokers’s Assessment
  23. #21

    Kinro

    Broker

    5.0/ 10

    Kinro Insurance Services LLC and the Kinro/Kinro AI technology-enabled distribution service for U.S. small-business commercial insurance. No carrier, MGA underwriting authority or risk-bearing status is assigned to Kinro itself.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Kinro’s Assessment
  24. #21

    Mylo

    Broker

    5.0/ 10

    Mylo, LLC and its disclosed trade names as an online insurance agency and broker; the insurer remains policy-specific.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric2/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.04/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Mylo’s Assessment
  25. #21

    Newfront

    Broker

    5.0/ 10

    Newfront Insurance Services and the contracting US brokerage entity identified in current Newfront materials, with business-insurance, benefits and claims-advocacy activity; WTW ownership is parent context and no carrier or risk-bearing role is assigned.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.01/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Newfront’s Assessment
  26. #21

    Resilience

    Broker

    5.0/ 10

    Resilience cyber-risk platform and U.S. insurance distribution as presented by Arceo Labs Inc. d/b/a Resilience and Ocrea Risk Services LLC d/b/a Resilience Cyber Insurance Solutions. Scope covers cyber and technology E&O products and the disclosed Homeland Insurance Company of New York or Delaware underwriting routes; no affiliated risk-bearing entity or delegated underwriting authority is assumed.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric1.98/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Resilience’s Assessment
  27. #21

    TechInsurance

    Broker

    5.0/ 10

    TechInsurance as a division/brand of Specialty Program Group LLC, doing business as SPG Insurance Solutions, for small-business and technology insurance distribution. It is not treated as a carrier; exact issuer and program vary by policy, product and state.

    Assessed · 30% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric2/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric
    The available disclosures do not sufficiently establish the relevant entity, product and responsibility boundaries.
    Read TechInsurance’s Assessment
  28. #21

    Vouch

    Broker

    5.0/ 10

    Vouch Specialty Insurance Services, LLC as the current Vouch brokerage; Vouch Group, Inc. as the marketing-name group. Corix Insurance Services, LLC and Vouch Insurance Company are separately recorded transaction entities and are not assumed to be the current broker or a buyer’s issuer.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric1.99/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.04/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Vouch’s Assessment
  29. #21

    WithCoverage

    Broker

    5.0/ 10

    With Coverage's US commercial-insurance brokerage and risk-advisory activity at the named-entity level, including With Coverage Inc. and With Coverage Insurance Services LLC where official terms, regulator filings or carrier directories identify them. No insurer, MGA or policy-risk-bearing role is included.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric1.99/4
    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric2.05/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read WithCoverage’s Assessment
  30. #30

    StartupInsurance.ai

    Broker

    4.9/ 10

    StartupInsurance.ai brand and ContractorNerd Insurance Services LLC as the disclosed agency/intermediary for startup and technology-company commercial insurance; carrier names displayed in marketing are not treated as issuers without quote or policy evidence.

    Assessed · 15% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity15% of the rubric1.94/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority30% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Carrier-Network Strength30% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct25% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read StartupInsurance.ai’s Assessment

Current Carrier & MGA Rankings

Insurers and managing general agents answer for what gets written and what backs it, so they are scored on their own criteria and ranked only against each other. Expand a row for scope, included factors and coverage.

  1. #1

    Cowbell

    Managing general agent

    7.8/ 10

    Cowbell US cyber and specialty program-administration activity at the named-entity level, centered on Cowbell Insurance Agency LLC as producer/general-agent/MGA activity. Palomar Specialty Insurance Company and Chaucer Specialty Insurance Company are separate external carrier-paper relationships and are not treated as Cowbell-owned risk-bearing entities; Cowbell Cyber, Inc. is brand/operator context.

    Assessed · 10% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric3.1/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority15% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Financial Resilience20% of the rubric
    The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.
    Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric
    The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.
    Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Cowbell’s Assessment
  2. #2

    The Hartford

    Carrier

    7.3/ 10

    The Hartford's US property-and-casualty carrier activity at named insurer level, centered on Hartford Fire Insurance Company and related writing companies disclosed in current legal notices and regulator records. The Hartford Insurance Group, Inc. is parent/holding-company context; life, benefits, Navigators and other entities are not merged into Hartford Fire's scored evidence.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority15% of the rubric2.57/4
    • Financial Resilience20% of the rubric2.99/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric3.32/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric
    The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.
    Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read The Hartford’s Assessment
  3. #3

    At-Bay

    Hybrid provider

    7.1/ 10

    At-Bay Insurance Services LLC as producer/broker and At-Bay Specialty Insurance Company as a Delaware-based E&S carrier, with issuer evidence limited to Cyber and Tech E&O policies announced as issuing on its own paper beginning August 7, 2023.

    Assessed · 30% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Financial Resilience20% of the rubric2.87/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric2.76/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority15% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric
    The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.
    Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read At-Bay’s Assessment
  4. #4

    Chubb

    Carrier

    7.0/ 10

    Chubb Limited as group parent and the exact US insurer entities in the cited materials. Current authority is independently verified for Federal Insurance Company, ACE American Insurance Company, Westchester Fire Insurance Company and Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company in Georgia, for Federal Insurance Company in Texas, and for Federal, ACE American and the Pennsylvania-domiciled Westchester Fire in California; the separate New York-domiciled Westchester Fire profile is merged and excluded. Capacity is assessed for one named programme only: the Brandywine run-off book of Century Indemnity Company, whose supporting XOL Agreement, Dividend Retention Fund and surplus note are disclosed with terms, limits and current balances. Financial and reinsurance evidence otherwise sits at group level, combined across the subsidiary group and across the whole ceded book, and no current Chubb commercial product or programme has an evidenced issuing entity or capacity panel, so none is assessed.

    Assessed · 25% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority15% of the rubric2.83/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric2.77/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Financial Resilience20% of the rubric
    The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.
    Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric
    The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.
    Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Chubb’s Assessment
  5. #5

    Hiscox

    Hybrid provider

    6.6/ 10

    Hiscox US small-business activity at the named-entity level: Hiscox Inc. as online intermediary/general agent and Hiscox Insurance Company Inc. as the named admitted insurer for Hiscox NOW products; Hiscox Ltd. and Lloyd's capacity are group or product-specific context, not a universal issuer mapping.

    Assessed · 65% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority15% of the rubric2.53/4
    • Financial Resilience20% of the rubric2.95/4
    • Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric2.01/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric3.44/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Hiscox’s Assessment
  6. #6

    ERGO NEXT Insurance

    Hybrid provider

    6.5/ 10

    ERGO NEXT Insurance brand and the named carrier and agency entities in its current terms and license disclosures, including Next Insurance US Company, State National Insurance Company, National Specialty Insurance Company, Next Insurance, Inc. and Next First Insurance Agency, Inc.; the reviewed carrier rating and Mississippi authority are limited to Next Insurance US Company.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority15% of the rubric2.13/4
    • Financial Resilience20% of the rubric2.97/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric2.62/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric
    The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.
    Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read ERGO NEXT Insurance’s Assessment
  7. #6

    Pie Insurance

    Hybrid provider

    6.5/ 10

    Pie Insurance Services, Inc. as producer/administrator; The Pie Insurance Company and Pie Casualty Insurance Company as separately named P&C entities. This review does not assign Pie Casualty to a product without product-specific evidence and does not treat Pie Group Holdings, Inc. as an insurer.

    Assessed · 25% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority15% of the rubric2.44/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric2.83/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Financial Resilience20% of the rubric
    The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.
    Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric
    The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.
    Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Pie Insurance’s Assessment
  8. #8

    Coalition

    Hybrid provider

    6.2/ 10

    Coalition's US cyber and technology-errors-and-omissions activity at the named-entity level. Producer, surplus-lines, Texas managing-general-agency and Texas adjuster authority is verified for Coalition Insurance Solutions, Inc. in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only. Capacity is assessed for two named programmes and no others. For the admitted cyber programme, the issuer is Coalition Insurance Company, NAIC 29530, whose Georgia, Texas and Pennsylvania authorisations are verified, whose appointment of Coalition Insurance Solutions is recorded in Texas and Pennsylvania, and whose AM Best A- rating was affirmed in March 2024; the reinsurance panel behind it is undisclosed. For the Coalition Re programme of cyber reinsurance treaties and white-labelled cover, the capacity panel is led by Aspen on Coalition's own statement; that evidence reaches Coalition Re only and not the carrier's paper. The non-admitted cyber and executive-risk programmes, which Coalition places with unaffiliated insurers, have no evidenced panel and are not assessed. Coalition Incident Response, Inc. is a separate security-services entity and is out of scope.

    Assessed · 60% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority15% of the rubric2.67/4
    • Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric2.06/4
    • Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric2.08/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric3.7/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Financial Resilience20% of the rubric
    The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Coalition’s Assessment
  9. #9

    Relm Insurance

    Hybrid provider

    6.1/ 10

    Relm Insurance Ltd.'s Bermuda-domiciled regulated insurance activity and Relm US Insurance Solutions Inc.'s separately licensed US producer/MGA and surplus-lines activity for emerging-industry risks. The Bermuda carrier, US intermediary and external fronting carriers are kept distinct; no US carrier status is assigned to Relm US Insurance Solutions Inc.

    Assessed · 80% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority15% of the rubric2.16/4
    • Financial Resilience20% of the rubric2.83/4
    • Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric2.04/4
    • Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric2.02/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric3.39/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Relm Insurance’s Assessment
  10. #9

    Travelers

    Carrier

    6.1/ 10

    The Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, with California insurer authority checked. Travelers group financial results and technology-insurance services provide context; the issuer and terms of a particular policy require confirmation.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority15% of the rubric2.72/4
    • Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric2/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric2.96/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Financial Resilience20% of the rubric
    The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.
    Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Travelers’s Assessment
  11. #11

    Beazley

    Hybrid provider

    5.7/ 10

    Beazley's US activity at the named-entity level: Beazley USA Services, Inc. as the US insurance-services and producer entity, and Beazley Insurance Company, Inc., Beazley America Insurance Company, Inc. and Beazley Excess and Surplus Insurance, Inc. as the US insurers named in the US terms and ratings table. Authority and authorisation are verified in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only. No Beazley US programme has an evidenced carrier or reinsurance panel: the reviewed material maps no product to an issuing entity, so capacity is assessed at entity authorisation level and no programme-level capacity claim is made. Beazley plc group evidence is contextual, and Lloyd's syndicate ratings are excluded from the US entity assessment.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority15% of the rubric2.58/4
    • Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric1.99/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric2.43/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Financial Resilience20% of the rubric
    The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.
    Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Beazley’s Assessment
  12. #11

    CFC

    Managing general agent

    5.7/ 10

    CFC Underwriting Limited as the UK underwriting-management entity and CFC USA, Inc. as the US producer and managing general agent, for CFC-branded technology, cyber, professional and specialty products. US authority is verified in Georgia, Texas and Pennsylvania only, with delegated underwriting and All Lines adjusting authority verified in Texas alone. Capacity is assessed for one relationship and two states only: the appointment of CFC USA, Inc. by State National Insurance Company, Inc., NAIC 12831, recorded in Texas since 2022 and Pennsylvania since 2019, covering CFC's delegated admitted business in those states. No CFC product is mapped to that carrier by any source, and the arrangement is not evidence about CFC's business in the other 48 jurisdictions. Lloyd's Syndicate 1988 is a company-level disclosure and is not assessed as the capacity behind any named US programme. Financial resilience is assessed as CFC Underwriting Limited's ability to sustain its own operations; the insurer's capital is not CFC's and is out of scope.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority15% of the rubric2.26/4
    • Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric2/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric2.83/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Financial Resilience20% of the rubric
    The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.
    Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read CFC’s Assessment
  13. #13

    Corgi

    Hybrid provider

    5.4/ 10

    Corgi Insurance Services, Inc. as producer and programme administrator, verified active in Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only, with Corgi Insurance Company, Inc. and Technology Risk Retention Group, Inc. as the separately disclosed risk-bearing entities. Capacity is assessed for three named channels and no others: coverages written on Corgi Insurance Company's own paper, where Georgia admitted and Pennsylvania surplus-lines authorisations are verified; coverages written by Technology Risk Retention Group, an Arizona-domiciled RRG registered in Georgia; and Pennsylvania placements with the three Employers-group carriers appointed to the producer entity. The unnamed partner carriers referenced in Corgi's disclaimer, and the carriers behind Corgi business in every other state, are not assessed. The Georgia producer identifier Corgi publishes did not resolve and is outside verified scope.

    Assessed · 40% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Identity and Authority15% of the rubric2.64/4
    • Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric2/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric1.72/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Financial Resilience20% of the rubric
    The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.
    Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric
    The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Corgi’s Assessment
  14. #14

    Armilla

    Managing general agent

    5.2/ 10

    Armilla Insurance Services Inc. as a company-named Lloyd's coverholder and AI insurance intermediary in North America, assessed against two named programmes and no others. For the AI Liability Insurance programme, also marketed as Armilla Insured, capacity is assessed as Armilla discloses it: a binding authority led by Chaucer and written by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, available to US insureds, offered through surplus lines insurers. For Armilla Guaranteed, a contractual performance warranty rather than insurance, no issuer is named and no capacity is assessed. The four reinsurers Armilla names on its broker page are attached to no programme and are not assessed as capacity for either. Financial resilience is scoped to Armilla's ability to sustain its own operations; the risk sits with the Lloyd's underwriters, whose capital is not Armilla's and is out of scope.

    Assessed · 10% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric2.07/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority15% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Financial Resilience20% of the rubric
    The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.
    Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric
    The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.
    Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric
    The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Armilla’s Assessment
  15. #15

    Coterie Insurance

    Managing general agent

    5.1/ 10

    Coterie brand/platform and Coterie Insurance Agency, LLC as an agency/MGA operation, with exact carrier evidence limited to Spinnaker Insurance Company for eligible Texas coastal BOP risks. No provider-wide rating or universal state-authority conclusion is verified.

    Assessed · 45% of this rubric’s weighting included

    Included in This Score

    • Claims and Servicing20% of the rubric2/4
    • Carrier-Network Strength15% of the rubric2/4
    • Disclosure Clarity10% of the rubric2.14/4

    Not Included in This Score

    Identity and Authority15% of the rubric
    Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.
    Financial Resilience20% of the rubric
    The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.
    Regulatory Conduct20% of the rubric
    A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.
    Read Coterie Insurance’s Assessment

Reviewed Providers Without a Current Numerical Ranking

These assessments do not expose a current number because the published result is insufficient, conflicting, a material concern or due for review.

About the Spot Score

What the Spot Score Measures

The Spot Score is our editorial assessment of a provider’s documented reliability in a stated role, activity and jurisdiction. It is not a prediction of default or claims payment, an AM Best rating, or a recommendation for a particular policy.

Placing business and carrying risk are different responsibilities, so we publish two scores against two sets of criteria and rank each on its own. A number from one does not imply the other. Check the legal entity, role and scope beside each assessment.

How the Score Is Calculated

We score each factor in the rubric from 0 to 4, divide the score by four and multiply by that factor’s weight. We add the contributions, divide by the sum of the included weights, multiply by ten and round to one decimal place.

The weights are editorial choices, not actuarial estimates. The Broker Spot Score weighs identity and authority 30%, carrier-network strength 30%, regulatory conduct 25% and disclosure clarity 15%. The Carrier & MGA Spot Score weighs identity and authority 15%, financial resilience 20%, claims and servicing 20%, carrier-network strength 15%, regulatory conduct 20% and disclosure clarity 10%. We do not convert an insurer’s letter rating directly into a Spot Score.

Two Scores, Because There Are Two Jobs

Placing business and carrying risk are different responsibilities on different balance sheets, so we publish two scores against two sets of criteria. The Broker Spot Score and the Carrier & MGA Spot Score do not share a scale, are ranked separately and cannot be read against each other.

A broker does not carry the risk and does not pay the claim, so we do not score it on financial resilience or claims and servicing. We score it on the carrier and market relationships it evidences for placements in scope. Those factors are not applicable to a broker rather than missing from its assessment.

An insurer answers for the issuing entity’s own capital and results. A managing general agent holds delegated underwriting authority but not the risk, so we read financial resilience as its ability to sustain its own operations and look to the capacity standing behind its programs. Both are assessed under the same rubric because both answer for what gets written and what backs it.

A full-stack provider tells the market it can do both jobs. We take that claim at face value: it receives both scores, side by side, and neither substitutes for the other. A strong brokerage arm does not evidence the paper behind the policy, and its own paper does not evidence the panel behind what it brokers.

Parent-company accounts, investments and partner logos are not substitutes for the assessed entity’s own evidence. We do not average carrier ratings when the relationship or share of business is unknown.

Programs Are Assessed One at a Time

Almost every program a carrier or managing general agent runs is backed by a different panel: different issuing carriers, different fronting and reinsurance arrangements, different terms, and a panel that can change. The same is true of the markets a broker places into.

So capacity evidenced for one program is evidence about that program only. It never establishes the panel behind another program, and we do not read a named relationship as describing a provider’s whole book. The scope shown beside each assessment names the programs and activity the evidence covers; anything outside it is not assessed rather than assessed favourably.

Partial Scores and Missing Evidence

We attempt an assessment for every provider. When a factor in the rubric lacks usable evidence, we exclude it instead of assigning zero. A partial score carries an asterisk, names the excluded factors and shows the percentage of the rubric’s weighting assessed. For an insurer whose conduct evidence is unavailable, the other five factors represent 80% of the rubric’s weighting; their weighted result is divided by 80% before conversion to ten points.

Missing records and jurisdictions outside the stated scope do not count as adverse findings or reduce a supported factor’s score. If the available evidence cannot support a factor’s rubric, that factor is excluded. A partial score describes only the included factors. Two providers with different exclusions are not assessed on the same evidence basis, even if their displayed scores are equal. The ranking shows scores in descending order with these limitations visible; it is not a recommendation or a ranking of claims-paying ability.

If no factor in a rubric has sufficient evidence, we cannot calculate a number. A material unresolved conflict about the assessed identity or scope, or a confirmed severe current restriction or financial failure, remains an explicit assessment concern; excluding a factor cannot conceal it. A completed conduct search with no findings is limited to the entities, databases and five-year period checked.

Updates and Corrections

We schedule licensing, rating-status and capacity evidence for review after 30 days, financial evidence when new filings arrive and at least quarterly, and other assertions after 90 days. An assessment that reaches its review deadline stops displaying a current numerical score until reviewed. Material corrections or regulatory changes require earlier review.

Methodology version 1.2 replaces the single rubric of version 1.1, which applied the same five factors to every provider, with two rubrics that are ranked and named separately. It adds carrier-network strength, removes financial resilience and claims and servicing from the broker rubric, and gives a full-stack provider both scores instead of one blended number. Changes to the method produce a new version and a new assessment; old scores are not silently reinterpreted. Contact Spot with a page URL and supporting source to report an error.

Our Commercial Interest

Tools for Enlightenment publishes Spot and works in the commercial insurance market. This research is not presented as financially independent of that business. A provider’s commercial relationship with Spot is not a scoring criterion.

Factors and Anchors

Each rubric has its own factors, weights and criteria. A full-stack provider is scored under both.

Brokers: Broker Spot Score

Identity and Authority

30% weight

Authority to solicit, negotiate and place the assessed lines in the assessed jurisdictions, held by the named brokerage entity.

  1. 0The named brokerage entity is verified as unable to place the assessed lines.
  2. 1Material current restrictions affect the brokerage entity’s ability to place in the assessed scope.
  3. 2Verified active producer authority carries documented restrictions within the assessed activity and jurisdiction; unresearched jurisdictions are not restrictions.
  4. 3Current producer authority for the assessed placement activity and jurisdictions is verified for the named entity.
  5. 4Current producer authority is verified together with the applicable firm licence, designated responsible producer and carrier appointments for the assessed scope.

Carrier-Network Strength

30% weight

The carrier and market relationships the brokerage evidences for placements in the assessed scope. A carrier’s own strength counts only where the relationship is named and evidenced; it never transfers from a logo. Capacity evidenced for one program is evidence about that program only. It never establishes the panel behind another program, and the assessed scope must name the programs the evidence covers.

  1. 0Verified failure of the placement or capacity arrangements the brokerage relies on in the assessed scope.
  2. 1Documented material instability in, or loss of, the brokerage’s carrier and market arrangements in scope.
  3. 2Named carrier or market relationships are documented for part of the assessed scope, with material limits on breadth, lines covered or evidenced share; unnamed markets are not counted.
  4. 3Current evidence names the carriers and markets supporting placements across the assessed scope and supports their stability.
  5. 4Multi-period evidence supports a named, stable and appropriately broad panel across the assessed scope, including the terms of the material appointments or binding arrangements.

Regulatory Conduct

25% weight

Current and historical findings against the brokerage entity within a documented regulatory search, including placement, compensation and fiduciary-handling conduct.

  1. 0A current severe final finding threatens the brokerage’s lawful operation in scope.
  2. 1Repeated or material unresolved final findings affect the assessed placement activity.
  3. 2Material historical findings against the brokerage have documented remediation.
  4. 3Findings are minor or resolved without a current material unresolved issue in the defined search.
  5. 4Completed required searches find no material findings against the named brokerage entity in the defined five-year window; this does not establish a universal clean record.

Disclosure Clarity

15% weight

Whether the brokerage makes its own role, its compensation and the insurer behind a placement traceable to the buyer.

  1. 0Reviewed disclosures are verified as materially misleading about the brokerage’s role, compensation or the insurer behind a placement.
  2. 1Material contradictions about role, compensation or placement responsibility remain unresolved.
  3. 2Core disclosures are usable but leave the brokerage’s role, compensation basis or the issuing insurer materially ambiguous.
  4. 3Role, compensation basis and placement responsibility are clear and consistent across the reviewed disclosures.
  5. 4Entity, role, compensation including contingent arrangements, issuing insurer and servicing responsibility are consistently traceable across the reviewed disclosures.

Insurers and Managing General Agents: Carrier & MGA Spot Score

Identity and Authority

15% weight

Authority to write the assessed lines in the assessed jurisdictions: a certificate of authority for an insurer, or the delegated underwriting and binding authority and its appointments for a managing general agent.

  1. 0The named entity is verified as unable to write or bind the assessed lines.
  2. 1Material current restrictions affect the authority to write or bind in the assessed scope.
  3. 2Verified active authority carries documented restrictions within the assessed lines and jurisdictions; unresearched jurisdictions are not restrictions.
  4. 3Current authority to write or bind the assessed lines and jurisdictions is verified for the named entity.
  5. 4Current authority is verified together with the appointments, delegation instruments and responsible-producer requirements the assessed programs depend on.

Financial Resilience

20% weight

Resources appropriate to what the entity actually carries. For an insurer this is the issuing entity’s own capital, surplus and results. For a managing general agent it is the ability to sustain its own operations: the risk sits with the issuing carrier, not the MGA, and an MGA must never be scored as if it held an insurer’s balance sheet.

  1. 0Verified failure to meet relevant financial obligations.
  2. 1Documented material financial or capacity stress.
  3. 2Resources support the current role with evidenced material financial or capacity constraints; missing records are not constraints.
  4. 3Current evidence supports adequate resources and stable material arrangements.
  5. 4Multi-period evidence supports sustained strength and resilience of material arrangements without unresolved material stress.

Claims and Servicing

20% weight

Where underwriting, issuance, servicing and claims responsibility sits between the assessed entity, its carriers and any third-party administrator, and how it is escalated and sustained.

  1. 0Verified breakdown of required servicing or claims responsibility.
  2. 1Material evidenced gaps or unresolved servicing failures.
  3. 2Responsible parties and basic processes are documented with material limitations.
  4. 3Responsibilities, access and escalation are clearly supported by current evidence.
  5. 4Responsibilities and escalation are clear with independently evidenced oversight, continuity and remediation effectiveness.

Carrier-Network Strength

15% weight

The capacity standing behind the assessed programs: who issues the paper, which reinsurers or fronting carriers support it, on what terms, and how durable the arrangement is evidenced to be. Programs are backed by different panels and different backers, and a panel can change. Capacity evidenced for one program is evidence about that program only. It never establishes the panel behind another program, and the assessed scope must name the programs the evidence covers.

  1. 0Verified failure or withdrawal of the capacity an assessed program depends on.
  2. 1Documented material instability in, or loss of, the issuing-carrier, fronting or reinsurance arrangements for an assessed program.
  3. 2Issuing carriers or reinsurers are named for part of the assessed scope, with material limits on the evidenced terms, lines, states or durability; unnamed capacity is not counted.
  4. 3Current evidence names the capacity behind each assessed program and supports the arrangements’ stability.
  5. 4Multi-period evidence supports named, stable capacity across the assessed programs with disclosed material terms, including the reinsurance or fronting arrangements each relies on.

Regulatory Conduct

20% weight

Current and historical findings within a documented regulatory search.

  1. 0A current severe final finding threatens lawful operation in scope.
  2. 1Repeated or material unresolved final findings affect the assessed activity.
  3. 2Material historical findings have documented remediation.
  4. 3Findings are minor or resolved without a current material unresolved issue in the defined search.
  5. 4Completed required searches find no material findings in the defined five-year window; this does not establish a universal clean record.

Disclosure Clarity

10% weight

Consistency and clarity of the material disclosures reviewed.

  1. 0Reviewed disclosures are verified as materially misleading.
  2. 1Material contradictions in reviewed disclosures remain unresolved.
  3. 2Core reviewed disclosures are usable but materially ambiguous.
  4. 3Relevant reviewed disclosures are clear and consistent.
  5. 4Entity, product, authority and financial responsibilities are consistently traceable across the reviewed disclosures.

The weights are editorial choices, not actuarial estimates. Read the provider assessments for evidence and scope, or editorial policy for publication limits.

Methodology version 1.2; updated 2026-09-22.

Let Spot Handle the Insurance Legwork.

Get help buying coverage and managing renewals, with less paperwork for your team. Start with a free consultation.

Talk to Spot