Insurance Rate Making Software: 6 Options Compared for 2027

The short answer on insurance rate making software

The right choice of insurance rate making software depends on one question: are you building premium rates, or quoting rates someone else built? Insurance rate making software covers the actuarial platforms that carriers and managing general agents (MGAs) use to build, test, document and deploy rates. A comparative rater is a different tool. It takes one client's risk data, submits it to several carriers and returns the quotes side by side, which is what most agencies need.

Our answer is to pick the category first and the vendor second. Akur8, Earnix, CGI's Ratabase360 and Duck Creek Rating belong to the rate-building group. EZLynx Rating Engine and Zywave TurboRater belong to the quoting group. None of the six publishes a list price on the pages we opened, so no budget comparison is possible until you request written quotes. US Tech Automations is neither a rater nor a rate-building platform. It is an orchestration layer that can sit above whichever rater you choose and move rate tables, quote data and approvals between your systems.

Key Takeaways

• Choose the category before the vendor: actuarial rate building for carriers and MGAs, or comparative quoting for agencies.

• None of the six platforms reviewed publishes a list price, so every budget starts with a written quote that states users, products and implementation scope.

• Among the vendor pages we opened, only Earnix names a product that generates rate filing documents, so the filing step still needs its own process.

• Among the pricing pages we opened, only Akur8's names a free pilot.

• Vendor reach figures such as EZLynx's 330-plus carriers describe connections, not your results, so test them against your own lines of business.

• An orchestration layer above a rater can reduce re-keying and keep review trails, but it needs API or export access and a named person who approves every change.

How we evaluated these tools

We evaluated six platforms using public vendor pages, independent directories, trade press and a regulator page, all opened for this guide. We did not run any product. Each platform was scored from 0 to 5 on seven criteria, and the criteria carry weights that add to 100. Role fit and filing support carry the most weight, because a rater that cannot do your job is disqualified regardless of its interface.

The scores are our judgment from public information, not measured performance. Where a vendor page did not state something, we scored it as not stated rather than assuming the feature is missing.

Two categories hiding under one search

Rate making and rating are separate jobs. Rate making sets the price: it selects variables, fits models, sets relativities and produces a rate plan. Rating applies a filed rate plan to a specific risk to produce a premium. Comparative raters take client data once, submit it to multiple carriers and show the results together. A small agency and a small MGA can type the same search and still need different products.

Filing is where the two categories meet. Earnix's Filing Accelerator page says the product generates rate filing documentation and keeps a log of every generated document for audits, according to its Earnix Filing Accelerator page. A trade-press write-up of that launch reports the vendor's own claim on errors: Earnix claim: some customers below 0.5% filing error rates according to FinTech Global (2025). Treat that as a vendor claim, not an independent measurement.

Regulators set the filing rules, and those rules vary. In California, all property and casualty rate applications must be submitted electronically through the NAIC's System for Electronic Rate and Form Filing, according to California Department of Insurance (undated government page). States also differ on whether a rate needs approval before use or can be used once filed. Confirm the rule for every state where you write, because a rating tool does not make that decision for you.

Who this is for

If you set rates or manage a rate plan at a carrier or MGA, your choice is among the actuarial platforms. Akur8 suits a team led by pricing analysts who want modeling and deployment in one place. Earnix suits a pricing team that also owns filing documents. Ratabase360 and Duck Creek Rating are better considered if you are replacing a rater inside a larger policy system.

If you run an agency and need quotes across carriers, the relevant group is EZLynx and TurboRater. TurboRater is the narrower of the two. Its product page describes it as a personal lines platform and says it "connects to 200+ personal line carriers," according to Zywave (undated vendor page). That reach is a connection count, not a measure of how many carriers your agency quotes.

Red flags: you have no one who owns a rate plan or can sign off on changes; you write only commercial lines but are looking at a personal-lines tool; or you expect a public list price, which none of the six publishes.

If your agency's larger gap is billing rather than quoting, our guide to billing software for insurance agencies covers that category.

What each platform publishes about price

Pricing checked November 10, 2026. None of the six platforms publishes a list price on the pages we opened, so every entry below is Quote-based. The differences lie in what each vendor says shapes the quote.

EZLynx is the most specific. Its comparison page says "EZLynx pricing is based on the number of users at your agency and the products you need," and that the rater, AMS, CRM and client portal "are already included." Read that as a bundle decision, not a standalone rater price. EZLynx rater: live quotes from more than 330 carriers according to EZLynx (undated vendor page).

Akur8's pricing page lists modules and a free pilot but no prices. An independent comparison on rfp.wiki says Akur8 has no public price list and that its contracts are custom, based on modeled premium volume. The same comparison offers the 2-week pilot figure, according to rfp.wiki (undated third-party comparison).

For Earnix, the product page has no pricing, plans or trials, and its calls to action are demo and contact requests. The rfp.wiki comparison says quotes require direct sales engagement. CGI's Ratabase page states no published pricing. Duck Creek's rating page has no pricing statement and routes buyers to "Talk to Sales." Zywave's TurboRater page lists no pricing or plan details, only a demo request and an info sheet.

Normalized feature matrix

The matrix below uses the same six yes-or-no questions for each platform. "Not stated" means the public page we opened does not say so. It does not mean the feature is absent, so confirm every gap in writing.

Read the matrix alongside the role question. A "Yes" in commercial lines does not tell you the platform fits a commercial-only carrier. It tells you the page names that coverage.

The six platforms, profiled

The figures in the table below are what each vendor or source states. Each one is a claim, and none has been independently measured in this guide.

Akur8

Akur8's pricing page names eight modules: Discover, Data, Risk, Demand, Rate, Rate Repo, Optim and Deploy. It notes that Optim is "only available in markets where regulation allows." The page is at Akur8's pricing page.

Best fit: carriers and MGAs with an in-house actuarial or pricing team that wants to build and deploy rates on one platform. The rfp.wiki comparison says Akur8 can export rating tables to CSV, JSON, PMML and POJO, which matters if your rater or policy system reads one of those formats. The same comparison credits Akur8 with unlimited-user licensing, which avoids seat fees for large actuarial teams.

Limitations: the same comparison says Akur8 places "less emphasis on managed ISO/bureau factor ingestion than dedicated bureau-content raters," and that "large legacy rater migrations still require significant actuarial reconciliation effort." Budget that reconciliation time, not only the license.

Implementation: the vendor offers a free pilot. The rfp.wiki comparison describes the pilot as two weeks and includes actuarial onboarding. Disqualifier: no actuary or pricing analyst in-house to own the models.

Earnix Price-It and Filing Accelerator

Earnix's pricing product targets insurers and banks. Its modules include Pricing Accelerator, which provides dashboards and simulations for pricing teams, Elevate Data, which prepares model-ready data, and an integration for ISO Electronic Rating Content for commercial lines, according to Earnix's pricing page (undated vendor page). The Filing Accelerator page describes customizable templates that match department-of-insurance specifications.

Best fit: insurers whose pricing and filing teams already work together and need an audit log of every generated filing document. The product is built for the North American filing workflow and for internal audits.

Limitations: the pricing page targets insurers and banks, and it does not mention MGAs or small carriers. The rfp.wiki comparison describes large-carrier implementations as "services-heavy and multi-month efforts." It also notes that other bureau or regional content sources may need separate integration work.

Implementation: Earnix offers Guidewire and ISO accelerators, which the comparison says can shorten time to value for common stacks. Disqualifier: a small MGA without a pricing team or a filing workflow to automate.

CGI Ratabase360

CGI describes Ratabase as a rating and product configuration platform with three parts: the core rating platform, Ratabase360 (a cloud-native SaaS version), and Ratabase Actuarial. Managed services cover items such as ISO circular updates, client-system integration and end-to-end testing, according to CGI's Ratabase page. CGI claim: 100+ successful Ratabase implementations according to CGI (undated vendor page). The page does not say over what period or by what method those counts were made.

Best fit: insurers that want rating logic managed by a vendor, including business users changing products without heavy IT involvement. The page says the platform serves insurers "of all sizes" and integrates with all major policy administration systems.

Limitations: the claims are from the vendor, and the page does not publish pricing. Deployment can be SaaS, managed services or on-premise, so the IT scope depends on the choice. Disqualifier: a single-person agency that needs a quoting tool rather than a rating platform.

Implementation: the page cites a 75% improvement in days to implement changes, which is also an unverified vendor claim. Ask CGI for a reference method and a written implementation plan.

Duck Creek Rating

Duck Creek's rating product page describes low-code product definition, What-If Modeling, Product Inheritance, Product Lifecycle Management and centralized lifecycle control with built-in audit controls. It says rating is part of a cloud-native foundation alongside policy, billing and claims. The page lists headline metrics of 750K quotes processed in a day and 140+ insurance products in production, with no client or time context, according to Duck Creek (undated vendor page).

Best fit: P&C insurers replacing a core system, especially those wanting rating and policy on one cloud platform. The page targets personal, commercial and specialty lines, and it names underwriters, line-of-business owners and technology leaders as users.

Limitations: the page does not say whether rating can be bought without Duck Creek Policy, so ask directly. It lists no pricing. Disqualifier: a small agency or a single-line MGA with no core-system project, because the platform buys into a larger stack.

Implementation: the page says pre-defined commercial products can go live in 45 days. That figure applies only to those products, so ask for the scope behind it.

EZLynx Rating Engine

EZLynx calls its built-in rater the comparative rater on its product comparison page. It returns live quotes from carriers and, for commercial lines, lets users enter client data once and submit it to several carriers at the same time. The rater is part of the EZLynx package, not a separate purchase.

Best fit: independent agencies that want to quote across carriers inside the agency management system they already use. The bundle includes the rater, AMS, CRM and client portal, which can make the switching decision a whole-system decision.

Limitations: the pages describe quoting, not rate building or filing. An EZLynx rater is not the tool a carrier uses to set and file rates. Pricing depends on users and products, so a multi-user agency should ask for the seat count and product list in the quote.

Implementation: the comparison page does not state an implementation timeline. Ask for one, and ask which carriers are connected in your states before you assume coverage.

Zywave TurboRater

TurboRater's product page lists auto, homeowners, condominium, renters, dwelling fire and motorcycle policies. A separate Personal Lines Quoting API mentions flood. The product integrates with many agency management systems, and a two-way Partner Platform integration moves policy data after a quote, according to Zywave's TurboRater page (undated vendor page).

Best fit: personal lines agencies that want quoting embedded on their own website, or credit unions that want a quote inside a loan application. The page describes both uses.

Limitations: the page indicates personal lines only. Commercial quoting is a separate Zywave product, MGA Hub, which the page describes for commercial E&S quoting. Disqualifier: a commercial-only agency.

Implementation: the page offers a demo and an info sheet, not a free pilot. Ask for the carrier list and the integration steps for your agency management system before you commit.

Where a rate change workflow breaks

At a small carrier or MGA, a rate change moves through at least three places: the rating file, the filing package and the CRM notes the account team uses. When each handoff depends on someone copying figures, errors and delays accumulate. This is where US Tech Automations would sit, above the rater, and the two workflows below are proposed, configurable designs rather than a live deployment.

Proposed workflow A starts when a new rate table export arrives in an approved folder or is pushed by the rating platform's API. The workflow compares the new table with the prior version, flags each changed factor and writes a change log. Its output is a difference report and a task in the pricing team's queue. The prerequisites are scheduled export or API access from the rating platform, file permissions, and a named reviewer. The human review point is the product owner or actuary, who approves every factor change before anything is loaded to production or filed.

Proposed workflow B starts when a HubSpot webhook subscribed to the ASSOCIATION_ADDED action fires after a new rate-change record is linked to a product or deal. HubSpot's webhook documentation lists that action and the subscription types, according to the HubSpot webhook docs. The workflow pulls the change summary and creates the filing checklist items, and its output is an updated CRM record and tasks for the account team. The prerequisites are HubSpot API access with the right scopes and an API path to the rater. The review point is compliance, which signs off before any customer-facing notice goes out.

Zapier, Make and n8n can connect these same systems, and the comparison is fair. When a builder configures them, they can keep run histories, retry failed steps and branch on errors, which gives you an audit trail. The buyer still designs and owns the rest: idempotency so a retried step does not create two tasks, escalation paths, access controls, and maintenance when a carrier changes an export format. A proposed US Tech Automations design could configure those branches and approval gates as prebuilt patterns, but the prerequisites above remain yours to confirm.

Worked example, as an illustration with hypothetical inputs and no measured data: a small MGA processes 40 rate-table changes per quarter. Each change takes 2.5 hours of re-keying and reconciliation across the rating file, the filing package and CRM notes, so the team spends 40 × 2.5 = 100 hours a quarter. If a proposed workflow stages each change and leaves 0.5 hours of human review per change, the total falls to 40 × 0.5 = 20 hours, a saving of 80 hours a quarter. The staging step would start from a HubSpot webhook on ASSOCIATION_ADDED, so the team is notified when a change is linked to a product record. Replace the 40, the 2.5 and the 0.5 with your own counts before relying on the 80.

Common mistakes

• Buying a carrier-grade rating engine when the job is quoting clients across carriers, which a comparative rater already does.

• Asking for a price without the inputs. A quote needs user counts, product lines, modeled premium volume and implementation scope.

• Skipping the export test. Check the file format and rate-table structure with a real export before you sign.

• Treating vendor reach figures as results. A count of carriers connected is not a count of carriers you quote.

• Assuming a rating tool handles state filing rules. It does not decide whether a rate needs approval before use.

Decision checklist

1. Write down whether you set rates, quote rates, or both.

2. List every line you write, personal and commercial, and check each vendor's stated coverage against that list.

3. Ask for a written quote that names users, products, implementation scope and renewal terms.

4. Confirm the export format and whether an API exists, using a sample file.

5. Name the person who approves rate changes and the person who approves filings.

6. Check each state's filing method before you go live.

When NOT to use US Tech Automations: three cases point to a simpler tool. If you are an agency that only needs multi-carrier quotes, EZLynx or TurboRater already does that work, and an orchestration layer adds cost without new function. If your carrier already runs a modeling platform, the modeling decisions belong in that platform, and US Tech Automations does not replace them. If you handle a few rate changes a year with one person, a shared checklist and a spreadsheet may cover the review without a new system.

Frequently asked questions

Is insurance rate making software the same as a comparative rater?

No. Rate making builds the rate plan, while a comparative rater applies filed rates to submit quotes from several carriers. Akur8 and Earnix sit in the first group, and EZLynx and TurboRater sit in the second.

Do small insurance businesses need actuarial rate-making software?

Only if they set rates themselves. Most agencies do not, so an agency should start with a comparative rater and skip the actuarial platform. A carrier or MGA without an actuary or pricing analyst should check whether it needs a rating engine at all before buying one.

Which of these vendors publish prices?

None of the six publishes a list price on the pages we opened, so all six are Quote-based. EZLynx ties its pricing to users and products, and Akur8 contracts are set by modeled premium volume.

Does a rating engine handle state rate filings?

Not on its own, based on the pages we opened. Earnix's Filing Accelerator is the one product that generates filing documentation. California requires property and casualty rate applications to be filed electronically through SERFF, so the filing step needs a process of its own whichever rater you choose.

Can US Tech Automations replace a rating engine?

No. It sits above the rating engine, moves rate tables, quote data and approvals between systems, and leaves rate building to the platform. It needs export or API access to the rater and a named person who approves each change.

How long does implementation take?

Duck Creek's page states that pre-defined commercial products can go live in 45 days, and the rfp.wiki comparison describes large-carrier Earnix implementations as multi-month efforts. The timeline depends on how many products and systems you connect, so ask each vendor for a plan with milestones.

Where to go from here

Pick the role first: rate building or quoting. Then request written quotes from the vendors in that group, with user counts, product lines, an export test and an implementation scope. If the work after the rater is the real bottleneck, see how US Tech Automations configures this for a proposed design with its review points, and check its prerequisites against your own systems before you commit.