Bordereau Reporting Software: 8 Tools Compared for 2027

The short answer

Bordereau reporting software is the tool that takes the periodic reports MGAs and coverholders send to carriers, checks them against the agreed terms, and turns them into records an auditor can use. A bordereau lists the policies bound, the premiums collected and the claims handled under delegated authority, so the software's real job is catching mismatches before they reach an audit. Which product fits depends on which side of the report you sit on, and on whether you need templates, premium accounting, or a checking layer in front of a system you already run.

The category is growing with the MGA channel. MGA statutory premium: 12% growth in 2025 according to Conning (2026), which also reports that this growth was roughly double the broader property-casualty market's growth of about 5%. More delegated business means more bordereaux, and more bordereaux mean more checking.

TL;DR: If you produce bordereaux as an MGA, shortlist Insly for editable templates or Selectsys for premium accounting. If you receive or audit them, look at FurtherAI, OWIT Global, Xceedance or Charles Taylor's Bordereaux Sync. If someone on your team can own data mappings, Verodat is the flexible option. Most of the others describe carrier, reinsurer or London-market use cases on the pages we opened.

Key Takeaways

• Bordereau reporting software ingests MGA-to-carrier reports, validates them and produces audit-ready records. The checking step is where small teams either save time or lose it.

• Choose by role. The MGA producing bordereaux, the carrier or reinsurer auditing them, and the broker receiving them need different tools.

• None of the eight products profiled here shows a verifiable price on the pages we opened, so every cost conversation starts with a quote or demo.

• Ask which checks run against your binder or policy terms. Format conversion alone leaves most of the audit work in place.

• Vendor figures, such as a 200-hour audit falling to about 110, are self-reported. Test them on your own files before you rely on them.

• Zapier, Make and n8n can handle simple intake, but you still own the validation logic, retries, escalation and the audit trail.

Pick the tool by your side of the report

A bordereau has three working sides. The MGA or coverholder produces it, the carrier, reinsurer or managing agent audits it, and the broker or program administrator often handles it in between. The London market shows how varied those flows are. Lloyd's Delegated Data Manager, or DDM, is now an elective service run by LIMOSS, which describes it as a centralised, highly automated platform that converts bordereaux into the agreed Coverholder Reporting Standards according to LIMOSS (undated page).

The scale of that market matters too. Lloyd's delegated business: almost 40% of premium according to VIPR (2021), with over 4,000 registered coverholders. VIPR is a technology vendor, so read that as its own commentary rather than an independent count.

Who this is for

Owners and operations leads at small MGAs and agencies that place delegated binders, plus small carriers or program administrators who receive bordereaux by email or spreadsheet. This guide assumes you must match files to a carrier's template and check them against binder terms, without a dedicated data team to do it.

Red flags: you have no written carrier template or binder terms to check against; you need a published price before any demo, which none of these vendors shows; or your only need is a one-off conversion rather than a recurring submission cycle.

How we evaluated these tools

We limited the list to products whose own pages we could open today, and we added independent or standards sources where they exist. For each product we looked at who it is built for, what it states it checks, what it outputs, and what it publicly discloses about price. We then weighted six criteria. The weights are our judgment for a small buyer, not a vendor score or a statistical model. A product that cannot show what it checks is out for you regardless of its weight.

What each product publicly shows

The matrix records only what each page states. "Not stated" means we did not find it on the page we opened, not that the product lacks the feature. Confirm every gap in a demo.

Pricing and total cost of ownership

None of the eight products publishes a verifiable price on the pages we opened, so the table records what each page does say. Every product is marked "Quote-based," which means the vendor sells through a quote or demo. We did not estimate prices from memory or from other products. A real quote will depend on your carrier templates, file volume and checks, so treat the worked example below as the inputs to bring to that conversation.

Pricing checked October 29, 2026.

Verodat says it prices on value rather than binder count and charges no per-binder fees, according to Verodat (undated page). That matters if your binder count will grow, but it is a marketing claim until a quote confirms it. Insly's pricing page describes a monthly base fee plus add-on modules and shows "Starting from" labels with no amount, so ask for the module list in writing before comparing.

A worked example in hours

Here is an illustrative case, not a customer. Suppose a small MGA sends one bordereau to each of three carriers every month, and each file takes 6 hours to check and reformat by hand. That is 3 files at 6 hours, or 18 hours a month and 216 hours a year. Suppose a validation step removes part of that rework. That is an assumption to test on your own files, not a measured result. Any validation step still needs a named reviewer who approves every premium or limit mismatch before anything goes to a carrier.

The table uses the 18-hour monthly baseline from the example above. It is a sensitivity check, not a forecast.

Vendor figures to test before you trust them

Vendor claims help set expectations but rarely settle a purchase. The FurtherAI figure is for one MGA partner's audit, reported by a reinsurer with a large MGA panel, so it may not map onto a small MGA's workload. The Xceedance percentages come from its own page, which names no client or method. Read them as direction, then ask each vendor for a reference you can call.

Eight products, profiled

Each profile covers best fit, limitations, implementation and the evidence we opened. Read them alongside the matrix above.

FurtherAI

Best fit: Carriers, reinsurers and MGAs that audit many delegated files and want the checking automated. Its blog uses a reinsurer with a large MGA panel as its example buyer, which is the audit-heavy profile the product is built around.

Limitations: FurtherAI describes itself as a domain-specific AI platform covering submissions, policy comparisons, underwriting audits and claims intake, so bordereaux is one use case among several. We found no price on the pages we opened, and the public call to action is a demo.

Implementation: Expect to supply the binding-authority terms the audit checks against, plus sample files in each MGA's format. Ask how exceptions reach your reviewers and what the audit file contains.

Evidence: FurtherAI's blog post on bordereaux management and its homepage. The blog lists format-agnostic ingestion, exception flagging and binding-authority reconciliation.

VIPR Intrali

Best fit: Firms already working inside VIPR's London-market tools. VIPR lists Intrali as its bordereaux management product, and its case studies name Oneglobal and MGAM as users alongside other VIPR tools. For a small buyer, Intrali is worth a look mainly if you already use VIPR.

Limitations: The product page we opened does not explain what Intrali checks, what inputs and outputs it handles, or whether it offers an API. Those are the first questions for a demo. It is also sold as part of a wider suite that includes VIPR Portal, Data Cloud, Insights, Intarga and a managed service.

Implementation: Not described on the pages we opened. Ask for a timeline, a sample of your files and the carrier template you must match.

Evidence: VIPR's product listing and case studies. VIPR's roadmap commentary on Lloyd's DDM is cited in the section on picking by side.

Charles Taylor InsureTech: Tide and Bordereaux Sync

Best fit: Participants in the London flow, and carriers or MGAs that want a screening layer before bad data reaches a management system. LIMOSS says DDM is powered by Tide, a cloud service hosted in Azure. Lloyd's scope: around 60 managing agents according to Intelligent Insurer (2018), which reported about 250 brokers and over 3,500 global coverholders in the original contract scope.

Limitations: The Bordereaux Sync page offers a contact form and a brochure, not a price, and it names no bordereaux platform other than Tide. Roadmap items discussed for Tide are not verified as shipped.

Implementation: Bordereaux Sync screens files before they reach a management system, and its escalation step contacts the sender and follows up until errors are resolved, according to Charles Taylor InsureTech (undated page). That loop needs a named owner on your side.

Selectsys Premium Accounting

Best fit: MGAs and wholesalers whose real problem is premium, commission and settlement reconciliation, where bordereaux are an output of accounting rather than a separate report. Its page describes a premium subledger, separation of carrier, MGA and producer amounts, commission and fee calculation, and settlement visibility with carriers.

Limitations: It is accounting-led. The page we opened does not describe checks of incoming carrier files against binder terms. It says premium accounting integrates with insurance management systems and accounting ledgers without naming any of them. Pricing is not published, and the calls to action are demo requests.

Implementation: Works best when premium transactions already sit in one place. Expect to align carrier and program groupings before the first bordereau runs.

Evidence: Selectsys's Premium Accounting bordereaux page, a vendor page with no independent review behind it.

OWIT Global Bordereaux Management Solution

Best fit: Carrier-side intake of MGA bordereaux where formats and rules change often. Its page describes ingestion of multiple file formats, configurable cleansing and transformation rules, calls to external validation services, and export of processed data to the carrier's back-end databases.

Limitations: The page leans on older press material and names no specific integrations, APIs or cloud host. It publishes no prices or plans. Ask for a current architecture document before you assume the features are current.

Implementation: Expect a rules workshop and a target database or export specification from the carrier. The page describes reusable microservices intended to reduce development and IT maintenance work.

Evidence: OWIT's solution page and the press release it links to.

Xceedance Bordereaux Platform

Best fit: Teams that receive risk, premium and claims bordereaux from many sources and formats, and need standard outputs such as OED, AIR, Lloyd's or custom layouts. The page says the platform is built for "DUA (delegated underwriting authority) and complex bordereaux environments."

Limitations: The percentages in the figures table above are vendor claims, not client results, and no client is named. The page offers a brochure download and no price.

Implementation: Reusable mappings and transformation logic carry across reporting cycles, so later cycles need less set-up. The first cycle still needs each source format mapped.

Evidence: Xceedance's transform page, which lists dashboards for progress and service levels, rule-based checks and sanity validations.

Verodat

Best fit: Teams with someone who can own data mappings and who want a general data-automation platform that also runs bordereaux workflows. Verodat's blog describes taking raw claims and premium data, organising it to each binder's requirements, and logging every change to support audits.

Limitations: Bordereaux is one use case on a general platform, and the blog names one downstream destination without listing integrations or APIs. Its pricing claim is not a published rate card.

Implementation: Expect a mapping project for each binder family, plus a routine for keeping mappings current when a carrier changes its template.

Evidence: Verodat's blog post on bordereaux processing, which is vendor marketing.

Insly

Best fit: Small MGAs that want one platform for policy data and bordereaux output. Insly's blog describes an editable bordereaux template where "updating bordereaux report templates is as simple as adding or changing columns," plus preconfigured Risk and premium Bordereaux reports.

Limitations: It is an MGA platform, so it is a poor fit if you only check bordereaux you receive. Its blog post on MGA data does not cover exports, integrations or APIs, so ask for those in writing.

Implementation: Its pricing page says the quote depends on system scope, implementation and transaction volume, with a monthly base fee plus add-on modules. Bring your transaction counts to the first call.

Evidence: Insly's blog post on MGA data and its public pricing page, which describes a pricing structure but no amounts.

Build, buy or configure

Many small teams first try to stitch this together in Zapier, Make or n8n. Those tools can keep run histories, retry failed steps and branch on errors when they are configured, so they are a real option for simple intake and routing. What stays with the buyer is the design and ownership: idempotency so a re-sent file is not submitted twice, escalation when nobody answers a flagged exception, access controls on carrier data, and maintenance each time a carrier changes its template.

A proposed US Tech Automations design for this reader would start from a trigger rather than a tool. When a carrier or MGA bordereau file lands in a designated mailbox or secure folder, the workflow would parse the spreadsheet, map columns to the carrier's template, and compare policy numbers and premiums against an export from your policy system. The outputs would be a draft submission file and a separate exception list, with nothing sent to a carrier. The prerequisites are file access or an API from the policy system, a written copy of the carrier template, and an agreed list of checks. The review point is a named person who approves every premium or limit mismatch before submission.

Each run writes a log the team can read later, and the exception list can be tracked in whatever tracker the team already uses. One optional route, for teams whose tracker is already HubSpot, is to create one HubSpot deal per flagged row, with the owner set through hubspot_owner_id, a deal property that HubSpot's deals reference lists in its examples. In the worked example above, that would be tracking the same 3 monthly files and 18 hours of monthly checking (216 hours a year). If you use HubSpot, the prerequisite is an account with the property mapping agreed in advance. The review point is the deal owner, who decides whether a flagged row is a data error or a real term breach. The workflow would not edit carrier data without that decision. US Tech Automations would configure these steps against your templates and checks, not a generic set.

When NOT to use US Tech Automations

Skip this design when a simpler tool already wins. If your carrier accepts a single portal upload and your submissions are rare, the portal plus a written checklist is simpler to run. If Insly or Selectsys already produces the carrier's template and checks you need, configure that first. If your managing agent requires a London-market service such as DDM, use the route it names rather than adding a parallel path.

Terms used in this guide

• Bordereau (plural bordereaux): the periodic report listing policies bound, premiums collected and claims handled under delegated authority.

• MGA (managing general agent): a firm that binds and administers business on a carrier's behalf under agreed terms.

• Coverholder: a firm authorised to write business under another party's delegated authority.

• DUA (delegated underwriting authority): the authority a carrier gives an MGA or coverholder to underwrite and bind business on its behalf.

• Fronting carrier: the carrier that issues policies for an MGA's business. Fronting carriers: about 20% of MGA premium according to Conning (2026), which estimates that share is supported through fronting relationships.

• DDM (Delegated Data Manager): Lloyd's bordereaux service, now an elective service run by LIMOSS and powered by Tide.

• Straight-through processing: moving data from submission to downstream systems without manual re-keying.

• Premium subledger: the transaction-level record of premium, commissions and adjustments that accounting ties to carriers.

Questions buyers ask

Is bordereau reporting software only for MGAs?

No. Carriers and reinsurers use it to receive and audit bordereaux, and in the London market DDM is an elective option for managing agents who want it.

Do any of these vendors publish prices?

Not on the pages we opened. Every product in the pricing table is quote-based, and Insly's pricing page shows a "Starting from" label with no amount next to it.

Can I build this in Zapier, Make or n8n instead?

Yes, for simple intake, routing and notifications. Those tools can keep run histories, retries and error branches when configured, but you still own idempotency, escalation, access controls and maintenance.

What should I bring to a demo?

Bring one carrier template, a month of real files, and the binder or policy terms those files must match. Ask the vendor to show the exception output, not only the converted file.

Which should a small MGA shortlist first?

Start with Insly if you need one platform with editable bordereaux templates, or Selectsys if premium and commission reconciliation is the bottleneck. Choose Verodat only if someone on your team can own the data mappings.

Is a bordereau the same as a premium audit?

No. The bordereau is the periodic report, and the audit is the review of that report against the agreed terms. The software's job is to make that review faster and better documented.

Next steps before you request quotes

1. Name which side of the report you sit on: MGA, carrier or broker.

2. Collect the carrier templates and the binder or policy terms each file must match.

3. Ask each vendor which checks run against those terms, and get the answer in writing.

4. Ask for an export format, a named integration, and whether an API exists.

5. Run one month of real files through a demo before you commit to a quote.

6. Decide who owns each exception and who signs off before anything goes to a carrier.

Pick the side first and the tool second. If your bottleneck is checking files against carrier and binder terms, the shortlist above covers the range from accounting to audit. If you want to see how exception handling could run against your own templates, see how US Tech Automations configures this using your sample files.