Why technology stalls in insurance — and how to fix it
Patterns from real assessments and partnership work. No theory — just what we see repeated across every technology company trying to break into insurance.
Part 3: Backing the Category, Not Just the Company: How Investors Should Evaluate New Risk Technology
Read insight →Part 2: Building the Case: How to Answer Why This, Why Us, and Why Now
Read insight →Part 1: The Three Questions Behind Every Stalled Insurance Pitch
Analysis · Distribution · Part 1 of 4 A technology vendor pitching into insurance distribution is being asked three different questions by three different audiences. Most pitches answer one of
Read insight →The Prevention-to-Pricing Gap
Analysis · Risk Control Prevention technology now demonstrably lowers the frequency and severity of loss. Yet most propositions never convert that capability into the one currency an underwriter recognises:
Read insight →Digital Twins in Commercial Property: From Buzzword to Underwriting Input
The digital twin concept has accumulated extraordinary momentum. McKinsey estimates global digital twin investments will exceed $48 billion by 2026, with 70% of C-suite technology executives at
Read insight →The Parametric Paradox: Why Removing Claims Friction Can Break Product Economics
Read insight →The Missing Layer in Loss Control: Why Technology Alone Doesn’t Reduce Claims
Read insight →Annual Strategy Report -2026
The strategic edge now sits at the intersection of decisioning, prevention, and workflow control. That is where margin becomes more defensible, loss becomes more manageable, and differentiation becomes harder to commoditise.
Read insight →The Loss Control Imperative: Why the Winners in Insurance Will Be the Ones Who Reduce Risk, Not Just Price It
Read insight →Why Your First Insurance Client Should Be a Broker
Read insight →The Compliance Conversation You're Not Having Early Enough
Every technology company we assess has a compliance gap. Not because they are negligent — most are GDPR-aware and take data security seriously — but because they have no
Read insight →