Competing offers from several insurers are not yet a decision: offers arrive in different structures, with different names and different small print. The decision is born when all of it lands in one table – same rows, same questions, side by side. That table is one of the most important products of a broker's work.
Why several offers – and why identical data?
As an independent broker I do not represent one insurer's product: I send the same needs and the same headcount and age-profile data to several insurers, so the offers that come back really answer the same question. Without this, the comparison is lopsided: between two offers it is often not the premium that truly differs, but the content behind it. The advice is free of charge – the broker's remuneration is paid by the insurer – so running the competition is not an extra cost but a natural part of the process; its course is shown on the How it works page.
What goes side by side?
The rows of a good table are typically: the cover elements and sums insured (death, accidental death and disability, bone fracture, surgery and hospital benefits, critical illness); the exclusions and waiting periods; the entry rules (who can be insured, what happens with probationers); the administration (how and how often headcount changes can be processed); the route for filing a claim; and finally the premium and the payment terms. A ready framework comes from the comparison table template. The order is a message in itself: content first, premium last – so the conversation becomes a comparison of value, not a price race.
Why the premium is not the whole story
Because the premium is the price of the content. If two offers differ meaningfully in premium, there is typically a reason: lower amounts, more exclusions, longer waiting periods or clunkier administration. The "cheapest" label can turn out expensive at claim time – and the other way round, a higher premium is no merit in itself. The table exists so that the cause of the difference is visible, not just the total. Two questions help: what do we gain for the difference, and what do we lose with it? If neither has a clear answer, there is still asking to do.
Reading the table: where are the traps?
Three places deserve special attention: covers with identical names but different content (two "surgery benefits" can differ widely in which procedures they pay for and in what category), the mixing of percentage-based and fixed payouts, and the limits hiding in the details. For reading the policy wording, the crash course for non-lawyers gives a handhold. Where an offer is unclear, we ask back in writing – the answer becomes part of the decision's documentation.
From the table to the decision
The table does not make a decision – it prepares one. For weighing the criteria beyond the premium, the decision criteria article offers a simple method; and the role split is the usual one: I assess the needs and explain the options – the decision is the client's.
A question about your own team? Book a free 20-minute consultation →
