If you help choose software at a managing general agent (MGA), compare products against those everyday handoffs. A shared test case gives you more useful evidence than separate feature lists.
- Map one real process before you evaluate products.
- Have every shortlisted vendor run the same submission, including the missing information and exceptions.
- Get a written cost breakdown and agree on a limited pilot before you commit.
Start with the work you need to fix
Insurance workflow automation moves repeatable work through defined steps. Software passes information along, checks it, and routes it. Your team needs to define which steps can run automatically and which decisions require a person.
Map one real process. Before automating anything, understand how work moves today. Pick one process your team runs every week and write down what triggers it, what information it needs, who owns it, what happens when something is missing, and what counts as done. That page becomes your test case for every vendor.
Match the software's scope. Products in this market do different jobs. Guidewire describes InsuranceSuite as core applications for policy administration, billing, and claims, available individually or bundled. Sixfold focuses on AI for underwriting. Intellistack positions its offering as automation that works alongside the insurance systems a business already runs. UiPath describes Maestro as coordinating agents, robots, and people across claims, underwriting, and servicing. Decide whether you need to replace your policy system, add a focused underwriting tool, or coordinate work around your existing systems.
Compare what happens after triage. Sorting submissions and preparing quotes are separate tasks. Some full-lifecycle platforms say they draft a quote using the insurer's own rates, policy wording, and current portfolio position once a strong opportunity is identified. Treat these capabilities as vendor descriptions to test in a demonstration. Ask every vendor whether its product stops at prioritizing the inbox or carries the file through to a priced quote that a person can review.
Ask every vendor to demonstrate the same workflow
A shared scenario turns a software demonstration into a practical test. Give each shortlisted vendor the same redacted or synthetic submission and run the same script: process it normally, remove one required document, change one underwriting rule, and inspect the resulting handoffs. If your team underwrites and needs to manage casualty insurance workflows end to end, Federato's comparison of P&C platforms can help turn vendor labels into demo questions, such as how far automation carries a submission toward a priced quote.
Ask vendors to demonstrate the scope behind labels such as AI-native, full lifecycle, or one platform. For full-lifecycle coverage, ask to see the renewal. For a single-platform claim, ask where the policy record lives after binding.
Follow the information. Ask where each field on screen came from, what updates the policy record when a quote changes, how a failed connection alerts a person, and whether anyone types the same data twice. Confirm availability for your lines and contract when evaluating an announced integration. One AI-native core vendor announced on September 29, 2026, that it had signed an agreement to license Verisk ISO Electronic Rating Content within its platform. If that content matters to your team, confirm the contracted coverage and availability.
Check human authority. Ask who can approve, override, or refer a file, and whether the reason stays visible afterward. Sixfold states that underwriters provide direction, guide exceptions, and remain accountable for how its AI Underwriter is governed. Duck Creek describes AI-driven actions in Agentic FNOL as designed to be traceable, explainable, and auditable; the product was available to early-access customers in its September 2026 announcement. Test those vendor statements by opening the history of an automated action and reading its explanation. NAIC ran a 12-state pilot of its AI Systems Evaluation Tool from March through September 2026. Ask your compliance team which review and recordkeeping requirements apply to your intended use.
Change a rule safely. Ask vendors to demonstrate version history when discussing configuration. Some platforms log each product change with who made it, when, the values before and after, and the version it applied to. Ask to see an effective date, the permission needed to make the change, and evidence that a policy written under the old rule retains its applicable version. Some platforms also offer portfolio rules that automatically clear, flag for referral, or decline submissions. Establish who on your team would own those rules and when a submission must be referred to a person.
| Criterion | Demo evidence to request | Open question |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow completion | The test submission reaches a reviewable quote | Which steps still need manual re-entry? |
| Shared information | A quote change reaches the policy record without re-entry | What happens when a connection fails? |
| Human controls | An underwriter overrides a recommendation and saves the reason | Who can change approval limits? |
| Change history | A rule edit shows the editor, timestamp, and prior version | Do existing policies retain the applicable rule version? |
Check the full cost of getting started
Ask for costs beyond the license fee. Software buyers are often advised to request a detailed breakdown of the investment expected in each project phase. A simple checklist can help organize cost, support, and compatibility questions before requesting final quotes.
Request a written breakdown. Ask whether the quote includes configuration, data cleanup and transfer, connections to existing systems, training, ongoing support, usage allowances, and later changes to rules or products. Vendors may bundle these items or charge separately, so get the inclusions in writing before comparing offers. Where a vendor doesn't publish pricing, request a quote matched to your scope.
Agree on pilot acceptance criteria. Before committing to a wider rollout, agree on a limited pilot with named responsibilities on both sides. Document the evidence that will count as acceptance, the support response you can expect, and the terms for exporting your data if you leave. Measure results against the process you mapped: elapsed time from receipt to quote, manual touches per file, requests for missing information, and exceptions referred to a person. Tracking the same metrics before and after rollout is the most reliable basis for measuring software ROI, so use those observed results to assess projected returns.
Conclusion
Choose a system only after it has handled your shared test case, shown where people retain decision authority, and provided a written view of implementation costs. A focused pilot with agreed measures can help your team decide whether the workflow fits before a broader commitment.
FAQs
Do we need to replace our current system?
An automation layer around your existing system may be enough. Ask the vendor to demonstrate connections to your specific policy system, including how updates are recorded and how failed connections are handled.
Which task should we improve first?
Choose frequent work with clear steps and an accountable owner. Start with a process you can describe on a page and test using a realistic submission.
Can AI make the final decision?
Define decision authority before you buy. Write down which actions the software may take automatically, what requires human approval, who can override a recommendation, and how exceptions reach the responsible person.
How should we compare quotes?
Match product scope first, then compare implementation costs and ongoing charges. Line up each vendor's inclusions by project phase and check whether a lower license fee comes with separate setup or integration charges.
