Field notes
Comparing offers: making the differences that matter visible
· By Diane du Paty, CEO & co-founder · 1 min read
An industrial SME, three insurers consulted, covers that look alike. Comparing badly often costs more than comparing slowly. How a firm put three offers on one grid, and why the client did not pick the cheapest.
Comparing offers takes time. Comparing them badly often costs a lot more.
A very concrete case in commercial insurance. A broker supports an industrial SME on the renewal of its property and casualty programme. Three insurers consulted. Covers that look alike, on the surface.
In practice, the comparison is time-consuming: different general conditions, deductibles expressed in different ways, sub-limits sometimes buried in the appendices. The classic result: the risk of focusing on the premium, for lack of time to take everything apart.
What the agent did
On this file, the agency used Panora’s offer-comparison agent, still called Brokerforce at the time. Concretely, it:
- extracted the key covers from each offer;
- lined up deductibles, limits and exclusions on one reading grid;
- highlighted the gaps that actually mattered for the client.
Two telling examples in this case. A cheaper offer carried a very low sub-limit on machinery breakdown. Another excluded some consequential losses that were critical to the client’s activity.
What the broker did with it
They presented the comparison in the meeting factually, without jargon: what is covered everywhere, what really changes from one insurer to the next, and the concrete consequences in the event of a claim.
The client did not choose the cheapest offer. They chose the one that best matched their actual risk.
What to take from it
Comparing offers is not about piling up documents. It is about making the differences that matter visible. When that comparison is fast and readable, the broker takes back control of the advice, not of the price.
