Four ways to build an insurance business
Three comparisons written for evaluation rather than for winning. Each one names the situations where the other structure is the better answer, because you will work that out anyway and we would rather you worked it out now.
All comparisons
Capability categories rather than feature-count scoring. Each page covers where the demand comes from, who evaluates the risk, who holds the product, what the capital requirement looks like, and how quickly each structure can move.
Vertically integrated vs a point-solution insurtech
Focus and a much smaller capital requirement, next to a group that owns every step and pays for all of them. The closest comparison on technology, and the furthest apart on structure.
View comparisonVertically integrated vs an established carrier
An in-force book, decades of rating history, and capital, next to owned acquisition and a comparative underwriting method. The category where the other side has the advantages we do not.
View comparisonVertically integrated vs an MGA-only model
Speed to market and no technology to build, next to owned demand, owned platforms, and a proprietary product at the end of the chain.
View comparisonComparing a holding company is a strange exercise
Most comparison pages put two products side by side and count features. That does not work here, because a holding company is not a product. What is actually being compared is a set of decisions about which parts of the insurance value chain you own, and the honest version of that comparison has to admit that the answer depends almost entirely on what you are trying to build and what capital you have to build it with.
So these pages compare structures. Owning the whole chain, as we do. Owning one excellent layer and selling it to everyone, which is what a point-solution insurtech does. Holding the product, the balance sheet, and the rating history and buying distribution, which is what an established carrier does. Or holding distribution, taking a commission, and building nothing, which is what an MGA-only model does. Each is a coherent business. Each is the right answer in some situation, and the situations are genuinely different.
Three rules hold on every page. We do not name a competitor, because the comparison is structural and naming one would make it look otherwise. We do not quote anyone's pricing, because pricing changes and is theirs to state. And we do not invent limitations: where we say a capability is not part of a category, we mean we could not find it in publicly documented materials for that category, and the page says so in those words.
The last rule is about us. Every page discloses what is still pre-launch on our side, because comparing a plan to an operating business without saying which is which is the oldest trick on a page like this. Two of our platforms are in production. One is in private beta. The product company is in development, pending state approval.
What is live on our side
The disclosure that makes a structural comparison honest, stated once here and repeated on every comparison page.
-
In production
AgentTech Dialer and Solved Telephony
In production with paying customers inside and outside the group, including AI Voice Agents at $0.10 per minute of talk time.
-
Operating
Solved Marketing and Solved Solutions
Operating. Owned lead acquisition at the top of the funnel, and FMO contracting and appointments at the distribution layer.
-
Private beta
Solved Enroll
Private beta with cohort agencies, with a public rollout planned for 2027. The AI Plan Recommender runs inside it today.
-
Pre-launch
Solved Insurance and Solved Re
In development, pending state approval. Nothing is on sale, and no coverage in force anywhere was issued by this group.
Read next
Comparisons describe the common shape of each category rather than any one product, and are based on publicly published materials.
FAQs
About these comparisons
Why compare models rather than companies?
Because the interesting question about a holding company is structural. Nobody chooses between us and one named competitor; they choose between owning the chain, buying one excellent layer, partnering with an established carrier, or running distribution and building nothing. These pages compare those four structures, and no competitor is named anywhere on them.
Do you publish competitor pricing on these pages?
No. Pricing changes, varies by contract, and is theirs to state. We describe capability categories, and every claim about another category is hedged to what is publicly documented rather than asserted as a limitation. Where we could not find a capability in publicly published materials, that is what the cell says, in those words.
Are you pretending the other models have no advantages?
The opposite, and each page says so in the same size type as everything else. An established carrier has an in-force book, decades of rating history, and capital. A point-solution insurtech has focus and a far lower capital requirement. An MGA-only model has speed and nothing to build. Those are real, and in many situations they are decisive.
Which parts of the Solved stack are actually live?
AgentTech Dialer and Solved Telephony are in production with paying customers inside and outside the group. Solved Marketing and Solved Solutions are operating. Solved Enroll is in private beta with a public rollout planned for 2027. Solved Insurance and Solved Re are in development, pending state approval, and nothing is on sale. Every comparison page repeats that disclosure, because a structural comparison is meaningless without it.
What is the honest case against the integrated model?
Capital, execution, and focus. Six companies is six sets of fixed costs, years of engineering a license agreement would have bought in a week, and the standing risk that you end up with six things that are each almost good enough. There is also the temptation to subsidize a weak layer whose customer is you. We write about all of that in the blog rather than only on a comparison page.
Something else? Contact us
The useful comparison is the one about your situation.
Tell us what you are building or evaluating and we will say plainly which of these four structures we think fits, including when it is not ours.