Best MGA Software 2026: A Comparison for Managing General Agents and Coverholders

“MGA software” is not one category, which is why shortlists for it go wrong so often. An MGA writing a single scheme through one capacity provider and an MGA running six programmes across three carriers with delegated claims authority are buying different things, and most of the platforms below are honestly built for one of those and not the other.

This compares nine platforms on the dimensions MGAs actually evaluate rather than on feature counts. Every claim about a competitor here is drawn from what that vendor publicly says about itself. Where a platform is a better fit than Regure for a given operation, that is stated plainly — a comparison that has one winner in every row is not a comparison.

The dimension that decides everything else

Before the feature grid, settle one question: is the platform the system of record for your book, or a layer over someone else's?

If the MGA owns the policy lifecycle end to end — products, rating, binding, issuance, endorsements, renewals, and often claims under delegated authority — the platform has to hold all of it, and the reporting back to capacity has to come off the same record. If instead the carrier's core holds the policy and the MGA is distributing on their paper, the requirement is much closer to distribution management and document workflow.

Buying a distribution platform for the first job leaves you reconciling in spreadsheets. Buying a full core for the second job is an expensive way to duplicate the carrier's system. Almost every unhappy MGA implementation traces back to this question not being answered first.

1. Insly

Cloud insurance platform aimed squarely at MGAs, brokers and small insurers, with policy administration, claims and accounting in one product and a no-code product builder for launching schemes. Strong European and UK footprint, and one of the few vendors whose marketing is genuinely written for MGAs rather than adapted from carrier material.

Best for: MGAs that want an end-to-end system of record and value speed of product launch over deep specialty configuration. Europe and UK.

Worth checking: how far the product builder stretches for genuinely unusual specialty structures, and what delegated claims handling looks like against your binder.

2. Novidea

A data-centric insurance distribution platform built on the Salesforce platform, serving brokers, MGAs and agents internationally. The Salesforce foundation is the defining characteristic: you inherit a mature CRM, reporting and integration ecosystem, and you also inherit its licensing model and its conventions.

Best for: Distribution-led businesses where relationship management and pipeline visibility matter as much as policy processing, and organisations already invested in Salesforce.

Worth checking: the total cost picture once Salesforce licensing is included, and how policy-lifecycle depth compares to a purpose-built core if you intend to run the book on it.

3. SEND

A UK underwriting workbench focused on submission intake, triage and underwriting decisioning rather than on being a full policy administration system. Well regarded in the London market for what it is designed to do.

Best for: Underwriting-led operations where the constraint is submission throughput and risk selection, and where a policy system already exists downstream.

Worth checking: what sits underneath it for issuance, endorsements, renewals and bordereaux — a workbench is deliberately not a core, so the rest of the stack still has to be answered.

4. INSTANDA

No-code product configuration and policy administration, built around launching and iterating insurance products quickly without a development cycle. UK origin, now used internationally by carriers and MGAs alike.

Best for: Operations whose competitive edge is product speed — launching a scheme, testing it, and changing rates and wordings frequently.

Worth checking: the document and evidence side. Product configuration and document orchestration are different problems, and MGAs under delegated authority are audited on the second.

5. Vertafore

A large US agency-management vendor — AMS360, Sagitta, QQCatalyst, ImageRight — with an explicit MGA ecosystem and the Orange Partner Program opening the platform to third-party integrations. Deeply embedded in US independent distribution.

Best for: US agencies and MGAs already standardised on a Vertafore AMS, or needing the distribution connectivity that comes with that install base.

Worth checking: how much of the MGA-specific work — binder authority control, bordereaux to capacity, delegated claims — the AMS covers natively versus what it expects a partner product to handle.

6. OneShield

A full core suite — policy, billing, claims — with a lighter-weight offering aimed at smaller carriers and MGAs alongside the enterprise product. Strong configuration depth for specialty lines.

Best for: MGAs operating like small carriers, with specialty products that need real configuration depth and the appetite for a core-system implementation.

Worth checking: implementation length and cost against the size of the book. Core suites reward scale.

7. Acturis

The de-facto default for UK broking, widely used by MGAs, with very deep UK market connectivity and insurer integrations. In much of the UK market the realistic question is not whether to use Acturis but what runs alongside it.

Best for: UK brokers and MGAs that need market connectivity and want the platform every counterparty already recognises.

Worth checking: flexibility for unusual delegated-authority structures and how bordereaux to multiple capacity providers are produced in practice.

8. Guidewire

Tier-one P&C core, with a solutions track aimed at managing general agents. Configuration depth is unmatched and so is programme cost.

Best for: MGAs operating at carrier scale, or MGAs whose capacity provider runs Guidewire and wants alignment across the chain.

Worth checking: whether the operation can carry a tier-one implementation. For most MGAs the honest answer is no, and that is not a criticism of the product.

9. Regure

Configured around the operation rather than sold as a fixed core, and bought in one of two shapes. For MGAs, coverholders and specialty programmes it runs the policy lifecycle directly — products and versioned rate tables, quoting, binding against the binder's authority terms, issuance, endorsements, renewals, claims under delegated authority, commissions and bordereaux, all on one record. Where a core is staying in place, the same platform runs alongside it and takes the document, evidence and workflow layer the core underinvests in.

The differentiator that is genuinely ours is evidence. Authority limits are enforced at the point of decision rather than checked at audit, every action is attributable and versioned as it happens, and premium and claims bordereaux generate from the book on each capacity provider's own template and cadence. For a coverholder, the thing that renews the binder is being able to show the managing agent what happened and when.

Best for: MGAs and coverholders that want to run the book on one system with the delegated-authority evidence produced by the work rather than assembled for an audit. Operations spanning US, UK, EU and Middle East regimes. Priced on what you run rather than per seat. See the MGA operating scope for every stage of the lifecycle and what each one produces.

Worth checking: if what you need is a mature CRM and pipeline management first and policy processing second, Novidea's Salesforce foundation gives you that on day one. If you need a tier-one core because your capacity provider requires it, that is Guidewire's job, not ours.

Side by side

Categories rather than scores — a scored grid implies a precision that does not exist across products this different. “Core” means the platform intends to be your system of record; “layer” means it expects one underneath or alongside.

The dimensions worth asking about, and why

Delegated authority. Ask where the authority check happens. A platform that records the bind and lets an audit find the breach later is doing something categorically different from one that refuses or refers the bind at the point of decision. Ask to see the second thing.

Bordereaux. Ask to see a bordereau generated from the book onto a capacity provider's own template, on their cadence, with no manual step. Most demonstrations show a report; the work is in the template variation between providers.

Rating and configuration. Ask whether a rate change is configuration or a release, and whether rate tables are versioned. If a quote written eight months ago cannot be explained against the rates in force at the time, that becomes a problem exactly when it matters most.

Claims under binder. If you handle claims, ask how the scope your binder allows is enforced, and where the evidence of that sits.

Implementation. Ask who configures it and what happens afterwards. A platform configured only by the vendor with a six-week queue for changes is a different operational reality from one where your own team adjusts a rate table.

Documents. Ask them to run a real submission pack — not a clean sample. Feature matrices converge; document handling does not, and it is the fastest way to separate platforms that model your products from platforms that expect you to model theirs.

Best fit by operation

UK coverholder, one or two binders, Lloyd's capacity: Acturis if market connectivity dominates; Insly for an end-to-end system of record; Regure where the binding is the sensitive part and the bordereaux and audit evidence are the recurring pain.

US MGA, multiple carriers, surplus lines: Vertafore if already standardised on their AMS; OneShield if operating at carrier scale with specialty depth; Regure for multi-carrier bordereaux and authority control on one record.

Scheme or product-launch-led MGA: INSTANDA or Insly, both built for product speed.

Distribution-led broker-MGA hybrid: Novidea, particularly with existing Salesforce investment.

Underwriting throughput is the bottleneck: SEND, with something else underneath for the policy lifecycle.

Carrier-scale MGA, or capacity provider requires alignment: Guidewire.

Where to start

Answer the system-of-record question first, then take three real documents — a submission pack, a mid-term endorsement and a bordereau you actually had to send — and make every shortlisted vendor run them. That single exercise separates the shortlist faster than any feature matrix, because it tests the part of the job that varies.

If the delegated-authority side is where your operation actually hurts — proving every bind was inside authority, producing bordereaux per provider without rebuilding them each period, holding a claim file that stands up in a binder audit — that is what Regure was built around. The MGA operating scope sets out each stage of the lifecycle and the evidence it leaves behind, and delegated authority covers the underlying concepts if the terminology is new.