Our methodology
How BizInsuranceCompare scores carriers, compares policies, and arrives at every rating, ranking, and recommendation on the site.
How we score every carrier
A six-dimension weighted framework, applied identically across every carrier in our coverage set. Every score linked to a citation. Every methodology change logged.
Overview
Every rating, ranking, and recommendation on BizInsuranceCompare.com follows a published methodology. This page explains exactly how we score carriers, how we compare policies, and how we determine which carriers and products to recommend for specific industries and situations.
We publish this methodology because we believe readers should be able to evaluate not just our conclusions but the process that produced them. If you disagree with our methodology, you should be able to say so specifically. And we should be able to update our process when we get legitimate feedback.
Part 1: How we rate carriers
Every carrier we review receives an overall rating between 1 and 10, based on a weighted combination of six factors. The factors, the weights, and the data sources are below.
Not every carrier is structurally identical. A broker that places business with a panel of insurers is scored differently from a direct carrier that holds risk on its own balance sheet, and an MGA that underwrites on a backing insurer's paper is scored differently from both. We define four scoring categories. Explained in Part 1.5. And the six-dimension methodology below applies in full to Category A carriers, with documented adjustments for the other three. Every carrier review page shows its scoring category.
The six carrier scoring dimensions
1. Financial strength (20% weight)
What it measures: The carrier's ability to pay claims, now and over the long term.
How we score it:
- A.M. Best rating: primary input (A++ or A+ = 9–10, A = 7–8, A- = 6–7, B++ and below = 5 or lower)
- S&P and Moody's ratings: secondary confirmation
- Years of continuous operation: bonus for carriers with 25+ year track records
- Parent company strength: considered when the carrier is a subsidiary
- Recent financial filings: checked for any material deterioration
Primary sources: A.M. Best (ambest.com), Moody's, S&P Global Ratings, carrier SEC filings (for public carriers), state DOI financial filings.
Why this matters: If a carrier can't pay claims, every other factor is irrelevant.
2. Complaint history (20% weight)
What it measures: How often policyholders complain about the carrier, relative to the carrier's market share.
How we score it:
- NAIC Commercial Liability Complaint Index over a 3-year window: primary input (index of 1.0 is market average; below 1.0 = fewer complaints than expected for market share; above 1.0 = more)
- Complaint trend across the 3-year window: improving, stable, or deteriorating
- Complaint categories: claims-handling complaints weighted more heavily than underwriting complaints
- State DOI complaint reports: cross-referenced for consistency
Primary sources: NAIC Consumer Information Source, state department of insurance complaint reports.
NAIC complaint index. Methodology and reliability floor
Volume threshold for ratio reliance. The NAIC complaint index is a ratio of complaint share to premium share. At low complaint volumes, that ratio is dominated by denominator noise. A single complaint against a small book can push the index from 0 to 15, and a single complaint missing from a small book can do the reverse. We require a minimum of 20 confirmed commercial liability complaints across the 3-year CIS window before the published ratio drives the Complaint History score. Below that threshold, we do not treat the ratio as signal. We retain the carrier's Category baseline (7.0 for Category A and C, 6.5 for Category B) and disclose the sub-threshold status directly on the review.
Group-weighted vs. primary-entity reading. Large carriers often write commercial liability through multiple NAIC-licensed entities in the same group. When we check alternate entities in a group and find non-trivial commercial liability volume. Generally more than $500M of CL premium across the 3-year window, or more than 10% of the primary entity's CL book, whichever is lower. We use a group-weighted complaint index that pools complaints and premiums across the material entities. When alternate entities show no material CL book, we read the primary entity alone. This rule is applied symmetrically: we do not cherry-pick the entity that produces the most favorable ratio, and we note the entities used on the review.
Why this matters: Complaint data is the most reliable proxy for how a carrier actually treats customers, separate from what they advertise. But only when there is enough of it to read honestly.
3. Coverage breadth (15% weight)
What it measures: The range and quality of coverage the carrier offers for small businesses.
How we score it:
- Number of policy types offered to small businesses
- Coverage limits and flexibility within each policy type
- Industry-specific coverage options
- Endorsements and optional coverages available
- Policy language strength (standard vs. broader vs. narrower than market)
Primary sources: Published policy specimens, carrier product sheets, IRMI coverage analysis, broker market intelligence.
Why this matters: A cheap policy that doesn't cover your actual risk isn't a good value.
4. Claims experience (15% weight)
What it measures: How the carrier handles claims when policyholders file them.
How we score it:
- Publicly available claims satisfaction data
- Third-party claims handling assessments (J.D. Power where available)
- Claims payment speed (from industry surveys)
- Reported claim denial patterns
- Carrier's published claims handling process and technology
Primary sources: J.D. Power surveys, claims-handling industry surveys, NAIC claims data, published claims experience reports.
Why this matters: Claims are the moment of truth in insurance. Carriers who handle them well are worth paying more for.
5. Pricing (15% weight)
What it measures: How competitive the carrier's pricing is relative to the market, for the coverage offered.
How we score it:
- Starting premium ranges for common policy types
- Pricing relative to market median for equivalent coverage
- Consistency of pricing (carriers with stable pricing score higher than those with wide swings)
- Availability of multi-policy and multi-year discounts
- Transparency of pricing (published rates and online quotes score higher than agent-only pricing)
Primary sources: Published rate filings, carrier quote engines, Insureon published benchmarks, broker market intelligence, industry publications.
Note on pricing scores: Lowest price is not automatically the best score. We penalize carriers whose pricing is dramatically below market when that reflects narrower coverage or limited claims-paying willingness.
Why this matters: Price matters, but only in context of what you're actually buying.
6. Customer experience (15% weight)
What it measures: How easy it is to actually do business with the carrier across the customer lifecycle.
How we score it:
- Quote and application process (online vs. agent-only, time to bind)
- Policy document quality and clarity
- Digital tools (customer portal, mobile app, certificate of insurance self-service)
- Customer service accessibility and responsiveness (phone, email, chat)
- Renewal process transparency
- Cancellation process fairness
- Third-party review scores (Trustpilot, Google, BBB) as supplementary data
Primary sources: Direct carrier interactions, carrier websites and portals, third-party review aggregators, customer surveys.
Why this matters: Insurance is a multi-year relationship, not a one-time purchase.
How the overall rating is calculated
Each carrier receives a score from 1–10 in each of the six dimensions. For direct carriers (Categories A, B, and C in Part 1.5), the overall rating is the weighted sum:
Overall Rating = (Financial Strength × 0.20) + (Complaint History × 0.20) +
(Coverage Breadth × 0.15) + (Claims Experience × 0.15) +
(Pricing × 0.15) + (Customer Experience × 0.15)Broker-aggregators (Category D) use a different formula because Complaint History does not apply structurally; see Part 1.5 for the adjusted formula.
Ratings are published on each carrier review page and updated quarterly based on new data, new filings, and changed circumstances.
What an overall rating means
- 9.0–10.0: Excellent. Best-in-class performance across most or all dimensions. We recommend them enthusiastically for small businesses that fit their target market.
- 8.0–8.9: Very good. Strong across most dimensions with at most minor weaknesses. A solid choice for most small businesses in their target market.
- 7.0–7.9: Good. Real strengths alongside notable weaknesses. We recommend them in specific situations where their strengths align with the buyer's priorities.
- 6.0–6.9: Acceptable. Works for some buyers but has significant limitations. We typically recommend alternatives for most situations.
- 5.0–5.9: Below average. We rarely recommend this carrier and usually suggest alternatives.
- Below 5.0: Poor. We recommend against choosing this carrier in most circumstances.
Part 1.5: How we adapt the scoring for MGAs, broker-aggregators, and newer direct carriers
The six dimensions in Part 1 describe how we rate a direct carrier with mature public data. Not every company we cover fits that pattern. To keep our scoring honest, we define four categories and document where the methodology adapts. Every carrier review page shows its category.
Category A. Direct carrier with mature NAIC volume
Examples: Hiscox, biBERK, The Hartford, Travelers, Pie Insurance.
Risk-bearing admitted insurers with enough commercial volume history for NAIC's Consumer Information Source (CIS) to publish a complaint index. The full six-dimension methodology in Part 1 applies without adaptation. The volume threshold in the Complaint History section still governs: Category A carriers that clear the 20-complaint floor over the 3-year CIS window are scored on the ratio itself. Category A carriers that do not clear the threshold retain a 7.0 Complaint History baseline with explicit sub-threshold disclosure on the review. Their CIS volume is simply too thin for us to read the ratio as signal, and we treat that as a neutral outcome rather than a positive finding.
Formula: standard. The Part 1 formula above.
Category B. Direct carrier with immature or unverifiable NAIC volume
Example: NEXT Insurance.
Admitted carrier on its own paper, but with commercial volume too recent (or too concentrated) for NAIC CIS to produce a meaningful multi-year index. Typically failing the 20-complaint volume threshold described in Part 1, or clearing it only in the most recent year with no trend to speak of. We score Complaint History at a neutral 6.5 data-gap baseline rather than treating the absence of data as a positive signal. The review discloses this directly: 6.5 is a neutral penalty, not a finding that the carrier handles complaints well or poorly.
Formula: standard. The Part 1 formula above.
Category C. MGA (Managing General Agent)
Examples: Coalition (cyber, multi-paper panel), Thimble (writes on Arch Insurance Company paper).
MGAs do not hold risk on their own balance sheet. They underwrite on the paper of one or more backing insurers. We score Complaint History on the backing paper's public data, not on the MGA itself, because the claims-paying entity is the paper carrier. For MGAs on a single paper panel (Thimble → Arch), the rule is straightforward. For MGAs on a multi-paper panel (Coalition), we default to the MGA's own admitted subsidiary where one exists and explicitly document the panel structure in the review. The 20-complaint volume threshold still applies to whichever entity we read: when the backing paper or MGA subsidiary does not have enough CL complaint volume over the 3-year window to support the ratio, we retain the 7.0 Category baseline with disclosure.
An MGA's own claims-handling operations still matter. Even on ceded risk, the MGA runs the day-to-day claims process for policyholders. We apply a modifier of up to ±0.5 based on that signal where it can be distinguished from the backing paper's complaint patterns.
Formula: standard. The Part 1 formula above.
Category D. Broker-aggregator
Examples: Simply Business, Embroker.
Brokers and digital aggregators place business with a panel of carriers. They do not hold risk, adjudicate claims, or appear in NAIC CIS as insurers of record. Scoring them on Complaint History would penalize them for lacking data that is structurally irrelevant to their role.
For broker-aggregators, Complaint History is not applicable. We re-weight the remaining five dimensions. The 20% originally assigned to Complaint History is absorbed entirely by Coverage Breadth, because for a broker the product is the panel. How many carriers, across how many lines, in how many states. The other four dimensions stay at 15% each.
Adjusted formula for broker-aggregators:
Overall Rating = (Financial Strength × 0.15) + (Coverage Breadth × 0.40) +
(Claims Experience × 0.15) + (Pricing × 0.15) +
(Customer Experience × 0.15)For a broker-aggregator, Coverage Breadth includes panel quality (the A.M. Best ratings of the panel carriers), panel breadth (how many carriers are available), line breadth (which policy types can be placed), and geographic footprint. Financial Strength refers to the broker's own operational stability and any parent-company backing. It is not a proxy for the panel carriers' claim-paying ability, which is the panel's job and which is addressed in Coverage Breadth.
How we classify
Classification combines three questions:
- Does the entity hold risk on its own balance sheet (direct carrier), underwrite on backing paper (MGA), or place business on a panel without holding risk (broker-aggregator)?
- Is public NAIC complaint data reliably available for the primary underwriting entity?
- How does the entity present itself structurally to policyholders. Single paper or panel?
We classify at the review level and re-examine the classification when a carrier's structure changes materially: a broker becoming an MGA, an acquisition changing the backing paper, a paper-panel shift. The classification appears on every carrier review page alongside the overall rating.
Part 2: How we select "best for" recommendations
Beyond overall ratings, we publish "best for [industry/use case]" recommendations throughout the site. These are not the same as highest-rated. A carrier with an 8.5 overall rating might be our top pick for one industry while a 7.8-rated carrier might be our top pick for another.
How industry-specific recommendations work
For each industry we cover, we evaluate carriers on:
- Industry-specific coverage fit. Does the carrier's standard policy address the specific risks of this industry, or are critical coverages excluded or limited?
- Industry expertise. Does the carrier have demonstrated experience underwriting this industry, or are they writing opportunistically?
- Industry-specific pricing. Is the carrier's pricing competitive for this specific industry, or are they priced for a different risk profile?
- Industry claims experience. Has the carrier demonstrated willingness to pay claims in this industry, or are there patterns of industry-specific disputes?
- Industry-specific features. Does the carrier offer endorsements, services, or coverages that specifically matter for this industry?
A carrier that scores 10/10 for a tech company might score 4/10 for a construction company. Our methodology accounts for this by publishing industry-specific rankings, not just overall rankings.
How state-specific recommendations work
Insurance regulations, required coverages, workers compensation rules, and carrier availability vary significantly by state. For each state we cover, our recommendations account for:
- Which carriers are actually licensed and actively writing business in the state
- State-specific coverage requirements (some carriers offer stronger compliance with specific state rules)
- State workers compensation structure (monopolistic state fund states vs. private market states)
- State-specific regulatory considerations (rating laws, cancellation rules, etc.)
A state-specific recommendation may differ from our overall national ranking because a carrier that's excellent nationwide might not be available, competitive, or well-adapted for a specific state's regulatory environment.
Part 3: How we compare policies
When we compare specific policies or policy types, we analyze:
Coverage comparison
- What's covered: the scope of the coverage grant, inclusions, and covered perils
- What's excluded: named exclusions, standard exclusions, and hidden exclusions in policy language
- Limits: per-occurrence limits, aggregate limits, sub-limits for specific coverage types
- Deductibles and retentions: structure, flexibility, and impact on premium
- Triggers: claims-made vs. occurrence, retroactive dates, tail coverage considerations
- Definitions: how key terms are defined in policy language (can dramatically change coverage scope)
Cost comparison
- Premium: base cost for equivalent coverage
- Total cost of ownership: including deductibles, coinsurance, and expected out-of-pocket costs
- Multi-year cost: accounting for renewal increases and long-term pricing stability
- Hidden costs: audit exposure (for workers comp), minimum premiums, fees
Service comparison
- Claims handling: process, speed, technology, third-party assessments
- Policy administration: ease of making changes, getting certificates, managing endorsements
- Customer support: accessibility, response time, expertise of staff
Industry fit
- Appropriateness: does the policy actually cover the risks this industry faces?
- Industry expertise: does the carrier understand this industry's unique considerations?
- Industry-specific features: are there endorsements or coverages designed for this industry?
Part 4: How we determine cost ranges
Cost figures published on BizInsuranceCompare.com come from several sources, each weighted by reliability:
Most reliable (Tier 1)
- Published carrier rate filings submitted to state departments of insurance
- Direct quotes gathered from carrier quote engines for representative business profiles
- Industry benchmark reports from established sources (Insureon, Embroker, others)
Reliable with caveats (Tier 2)
- Carrier marketing materials citing specific rate ranges
- Broker market intelligence and trade publication reports
- Published premium data from NAIC filings
Supplementary (Tier 3)
- Policyholder-reported premiums in public forums and reviews
- Industry association surveys of member premiums
- Historical trend data for year-over-year comparison
When we publish a cost range, we cite the primary source. When cost data is estimated or extrapolated, we note that the range is directional and actual quotes may vary.
Part 5: What our methodology does not cover
Being transparent about what we don't do is as important as being transparent about what we do.
We do not
- Guarantee specific premiums. Actual premiums depend on your business specifics, location, claims history, and carrier underwriting. Our published ranges are guidance, not quotes.
- Replace a licensed agent or broker. We provide independent research and comparison to help you make informed decisions, but we do not substitute for the role of a licensed insurance professional who can bind coverage on your behalf.
- Cover every carrier in the market. We cover carriers that serve small business, that have available data for meaningful analysis, and that readers ask about. Some regional or specialty carriers may not appear on our site.
- Guarantee claims outcomes. Our ratings reflect our assessment of a carrier's patterns. Individual claim experiences can vary.
- Predict future pricing. Our pricing analysis reflects current market conditions. Insurance pricing cycles, regulatory changes, and market events can change prices significantly over time.
Limitations we acknowledge
- Data availability varies. Some carriers provide more public data than others. Our analysis is stronger for carriers that publish rate filings, detailed policy specimens, and complaint data. We note data limitations when relevant.
- Industry coverage is uneven. We cover the industries our readers ask about most. Some industries have deeper coverage than others. We're always expanding based on reader demand.
- State coverage is uneven. We cover all 50 states, but depth varies. State-specific regulations change, and we update state pages on a defined schedule.
Part 6: How to challenge our methodology
If you disagree with a specific rating, a specific recommendation, or our methodology overall:
- Email editor@bizinsurancecompare.com with your specific disagreement and the sources that support your position
- We'll investigate against our original sources and any new information you provide
- If we were wrong, we correct it publicly with the date and nature of the correction
- If we stand by our analysis, we'll explain why. With specific references to our sources and methodology
Our methodology is a working document. It evolves as we learn, as the industry changes, and as we encounter cases where our current approach falls short. Reader and industry feedback is part of how it improves.
Methodology update history
| Date | Change | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| April 24, 2026 | Added explicit volume-threshold rule (minimum 20 confirmed CL complaints across the 3-year CIS window before the ratio drives Complaint History), codified group-weighted-vs-primary-entity reading for multi-entity groups, and clarified sub-threshold baseline handling across Categories A, B, and C | Completing our first pass of NAIC CIS 3-year commercial liability data revealed that most carriers in our Category A/B/C coverage do not clear a volume level at which the ratio can be read as signal. The small-denominator noise problem. Making the reliability floor explicit and public protects scores from being moved by statistical noise; making group-weighted reading explicit prevents both false cleanups (reading only a quiet primary entity) and false indictments (reading only a noisy sister entity) |
| April 22, 2026 | Added Part 1.5 defining four scoring categories (A–D) with type-specific Complaint History handling and an adjusted overall-rating formula for broker-aggregators (Category D) | First carrier review highlighted that treating brokers, MGAs, and direct carriers identically on Complaint History produced misleading scores; framework makes adjustments explicit and public |
| April 21, 2026 | Initial publication | Site launch |