Best MGA Bordereaux Software: 4 Steps to Choose in 2027

Key Takeaways

• The category decision comes first: an MGA needs software that produces and checks its own carrier bordereaux from policy and accounting data. Carrier-side audit software answers a different question.

• Pallis is the only product in this guide that publishes list prices, so it is the easiest one to budget first.

• Insly, FurtherAI, OWIT Global, VIPR, Vertafore, and Selectsys publish no price on the pages reviewed, so each one starts as a quote-based conversation.

• Match the product to your bottleneck: carrier output templates, intake validation, or premium reconciliation.

• Most performance figures in this category are vendor claims. Treat them as claims until a reference or a carrier confirms them.

TL;DR: For a small MGA reporting to several carriers, start with Pallis for its published pricing, add one product that covers your specific gap, and confirm each carrier template in writing before you sign.

A bordereau is a recurring report that an MGA sends to the carrier or reinsurer backing its business, listing the policies written or the claims incurred in a set period.

How we evaluated these tools

This is an informed buyer's guide built from public information. No product here was run in a hands-on test, and no figure below comes from one. We opened each vendor's own product or pricing page and added independent or trade sources where we could find them. Review-site pages were blocked or carried too few reviews to use, so this guide publishes no star ratings.

The category is growing. US MGA premium flow: about $128 billion in 2025 according to Conning (2026). The same study reports a narrower regulatory figure, Statutory MGA direct premium: $102.6 billion, up 12% according to Conning (2026). Conning's earlier 2024 estimate was $114.1 billion, up 16%, according to Insurance Business (2026).

The weights below reflect a small MGA's purchase, not a carrier's audit.

The scale column is for your own scoring. We publish no numeric scores because the public evidence is too thin to rank these vendors numerically.

We dropped three candidates. Insurity's Bridge Specialty Suite is a policy administration system, and we found no bordereaux-specific evidence for it. A Coforge bordereaux page returned an error. Peakflo is cited below for its published reconciliation claims but is not profiled, because its pricing page offers only a custom-pricing call.

Where each product sits in the bordereau chain

Read "Not stated" as "the page we opened did not say," not as "no."

Three groups stand out. FurtherAI sits on the carrier side, checking what MGAs send. OWIT and VIPR sit between your intake and your carrier, checking data before it moves on. Pallis, Vertafore, and Selectsys generate output from your own book.

Peakflo's pricing page offers only a custom-pricing call, and its blog gives its own reconciliation figures. Peakflo claims its automation can cut monthly reconciliation from 2–3 weeks to 3–5 days, according to Peakflo (2026). Treat that as a vendor claim. For a wider view of workflow tools aimed at wholesalers and MGAs, see our workflow tools guide.

Pricing and total cost of ownership

Pricing checked October 28, 2026.

Quote-based means the vendor's own page published no price when we opened it. We print only figures read on vendor pages. Third-party listings show numbers for Insly that Insly's own page does not publish, and we did not use them.

Pallis is the only vendor here with published tiers. Its Starter tier is priced at Starter tier: $399 per month on monthly billing according to Pallis (2026), and the Growth and Scale tiers run Growth costs $1,199 a month and Scale costs $2,999 a month, monthly billing according to Pallis (2026).

The Pallis rows come from Pallis's pricing page. Pallis also lists add-ons: the Certificate API adds $150 a month and the white-label portal adds $300 a month on Growth, and Lloyd's Crystal and the AIG Connect API each add $500 a month on Scale.

Table 4 shows how a seat count changes the Starter tier. Starter includes five seats, and each extra seat is $29 a month on the same page.

The seven-seat rows add two seats at $29 each: $399 + $58 = $457 a month, and $339 + $58 = $397 a month. Yearly totals are the monthly figure times 12. The page does not say whether annual billing changes the $29 seat rate, so confirm it with Pallis before you budget.

Seven products, profiled

Each profile separates what the vendor's page says from our read of it.

Pallis

Published facts: Pallis describes itself as a multitenant platform for MGAs. Starter covers policy and claims management, bordereaux with four carrier templates, a carrier submission pipeline, and an audit log, for MGAs under $10M GWP (as listed on Pallis's pricing page). Migration through Pallis Connect is included on Starter.

Limitations: Starter excludes the insured portal and Intelligence Pro. The page does not say how a fifth carrier template would be handled or priced.

Implementation: Migration is named on Starter, but the page gives no timeline.

Our read: Pallis is the most budgetable option here. Count your carriers before you compare prices, because four templates may not cover your book.

Insly

Published facts: Insly's pricing page says MGA pricing is "based on system scope, implementation and volumes transacted through platform." The MGA package is a monthly base fee plus modules, with unlimited users. Implementation is a fixed fee or pay-as-you-go, depending on size and scope. The site navigation lists Product Builder, Product Distribution, Accounting and reporting, Claims management, Nora, and Socrates.

Limitations: The pricing page does not mention bordereaux. Treat bordereaux production as a question to answer in writing, not a feature to assume.

Implementation: The fixed-fee or pay-as-you-go model depends on scope. No timeline is published.

Our read: Insly fits an MGA that wants one platform spanning product, distribution, accounting, and claims, and that is ready to negotiate. Ask for the bordereaux templates for each carrier before you sign. Evidence: Insly pricing.

FurtherAI

Published facts: FurtherAI's blog describes bordereaux software as a way for carriers and reinsurers to take in the premium, claims, and risk data MGAs report. Its feature list includes format-agnostic intake, validation with exception flagging, reconciliation against each MGA's rates, commissions, and limits, and audit-ready documentation.

Vendor claim: Vendor-reported audit workload: 45% lower, 200 to 110 hours according to FurtherAI (2026). The case describes one unnamed reinsurer overseeing more than 100 MGAs.

Limitations: No pricing is published, and its only call to action is a sales conversation. The page names no integration partners.

Our read: FurtherAI is the wrong purchase for an MGA operator unless you are the carrier. It belongs on this list because it defines what the carrier side checks for, and an MGA should know that before it submits files.

OWIT Global

Published facts: The Bordereaux/Program Management page describes ingesting, cleansing, normalizing, and processing bordereaux or other data interchanges. It covers re-rating and validation, configurable rules, and binder validation rules. Underwriting thresholds create audit points when exceeded, and the product monitors aggregation limits for gross premium, net premium, acquisition expenses, cash receipts, claim reserves, and claim payments. It refers to MGU/MGA limits and TPA claims management, and it mentions an integration framework.

Limitations: The page does not specify output formats, deployment model, or pricing.

Implementation: The integration framework is described as a way to speed up integration, with no timeline given.

Our read: OWIT fits binder-heavy operations that need rules and limit monitoring more than a template generator. Evidence: OWIT Global.

VIPR

Published facts: VIPR says Intrali converts data "from any format into a single, compliant model," with AI-driven validations. Intarga covers coverholder onboarding and due diligence workflows. Active Reports appears in case studies, but its function is not described. The site lists 500,000+ bordereaux processed annually according to VIPR (page undated), and it claims 98% faster processing without naming the product or baseline it measures against.

Limitations: The page describes no outputs, deployment, integrations, or pricing. Its figures are self-reported.

Our read: VIPR is a candidate if your carriers send mixed-format files, especially in Lloyd's delegated authority. Ask for the output templates you need before you rely on its validation.

Vertafore MGA Systems

Published facts: Vertafore's product page says MGA Systems can "Generate carrier data feeds, bordereaux, and the custom reports you require." It lists open APIs for portals, rating platforms, and third-party applications, and describes NetRate as a "full-featured ISO rater solution." Deployment is described as "Client server based with secure database connectivity for remote users." Evidence: Vertafore MGA Systems.

Limitations: The page publishes no price and does not list carrier formats. The datasheet we tried to read was unreadable, so this profile rests on the product page alone.

Implementation: A system covering rating, policy, and reporting usually means a larger rollout. The page gives no timeline.

Our read: Vertafore fits an MGA replacing its core system, not one adding a bordereaux tool to an existing setup.

Selectsys Premium Accounting

Published facts: The page calls the product "a dedicated premium subledger for MGA operations" and lists "Produce bordereaux." Reconciliation covers partial payments and carrier settlements, with traceability from policy to ledger. Integrations include QuickBooks Online, NetSuite, Xero, and Workday. The page says the product integrates with existing MGA management systems and does not replace them. Evidence: Selectsys.

Limitations: The page does not mention claims bordereaux, deployment, or implementation, and it states no price.

Our read: Selectsys fits an MGA that already runs a policy system and whose gap is premium accounting and reconciliation.

Build versus buy: Zapier, Make, n8n, or in-house

For many small MGAs, the real alternative is a spreadsheet plus an automation tool. Zapier, Make, and n8n can move exports between systems, and they can support run histories, retries, and error branches when configured. This guide did not open the current Zapier or Make error-handling pages, so it does not describe their features in detail. The n8n documentation we opened says each workflow needs an error workflow attached in Workflow Settings, and that the Error Trigger receives details such as the execution ID and error message. Whichever tool you use, you design and own observability, idempotency (so a rerun does not submit a carrier file twice), escalation, access controls, and maintenance.

Worked example (illustrative, not measured): an MGA with six carriers spends 4.5 hours per carrier each month assembling bordereaux, which is 27 hours (6 × 4.5 = 27). Suppose a configured flow with validation cuts that to 6 hours of human review, freeing 21 hours a month (27 − 6 = 21), or 252 hours a year (21 × 12 = 252). In n8n, the failure path is part of that build: the Error Trigger receives execution.error.message and, on a retry, execution.retryOf, but a workflow with no error workflow attached sends no alert when it fails.

US Tech Automations could configure a proposed month-end workflow for this, labeled as a design rather than a live deployment. The trigger is the close of the policy period, which needs a bulk export or documented API from your policy and accounting systems. The action maps each carrier's template, recalculates premium and commission against your binder terms, and writes a draft file per carrier plus an exceptions list. Prerequisites are export access, each carrier's template specification in writing, and named approvers. Human review points are every exception and the sign-off on each file before it leaves your systems. Compared with a stitched-together Zap, the design would put exceptions in one queue with named approvers and stop a file from being resubmitted after a partial failure. Those are configuration choices, and the buyer still owns them.

US Tech Automations could configure the claims side as a second proposed design. The trigger is a claim status or reserve change, which needs a webhook or scheduled export from the claims system. The workflow compares paid and reserved amounts with the claims template and flags any mismatch. The output is a draft claims bordereau and an audit log of each change. A claims handler approves each reserve change before the bordereau is generated, and the design needs the same API access as the premium design.

Who this is for

Who this is for: owners and operations leads at small MGAs who send carrier bordereaux every month and are close to choosing a system.

Red flags: your policy or claims system has no bulk export or API, you have no written template from each carrier, or no one on your team owns exceptions and approvals.

If none of these applies, use the matrix above to narrow to two products.

Common mistakes before you shortlist

• Comparing a carrier-side audit tool with an MGA-side system as if they do the same job.

• Treating vendor ROI or hours saved as measured results.

• Assuming a carrier template exists because a vendor mentions bordereaux.

• Skipping the export question, which decides whether any product can read your data.

Questions buyers ask first

Which product should a small MGA shortlist first?

Start with Pallis if you want published prices and your carriers fit its four templates, then add one product that covers the gap in your current process.

Is FurtherAI a bordereaux tool for MGAs?

No. FurtherAI describes its product as a way for carriers and reinsurers to check MGA data, so it is mainly a carrier-side purchase.

Why does this guide show Quote-based for so many vendors?

Because each vendor's own page published no price when we opened it, so we did not estimate one.

Can you build this yourself in Zapier, Make, or n8n?

Yes, for simple exports, and then you own observability, approvals, and maintenance. Make sure the export path works before you design anything else.

Is a packaged product better than US Tech Automations?

Sometimes, yes. When NOT to use US Tech Automations: skip a custom design if one carrier with a fixed template already exports from your policy system, if a carrier requires a certified file format that a packaged product already supports, or if your policy system has no bulk export or API, because no design can fix missing data access. A simpler spreadsheet plus a packaged product wins in each of these cases.

Bottom line for 2027

Four steps before you sign:

1. Count your carriers and collect each report template in writing.

2. Confirm the export or API path from your policy and accounting systems.

3. Get written pricing from every quote-based vendor, and confirm Pallis's seat rules if you shortlist it.

4. Ask for two references from MGAs that report to the same carriers you do.

If the export path is the blocker, see how US Tech Automations configures this as a proposed design, then check the prerequisites against your own systems.