8 Oct 2026
The Insurtech Platform Evaluation Checklist
By Tushar Kulkarni, Chief Product Officer | Updated 8 October 2026 |Estimated reading time: 10 mins
Summary
A platform demonstration can show how an Insurtech solution supports a standard customer journey, while a thorough evaluation also considers policy changes, cancellations, failed payments, unavailable systems and audit requirements. The most suitable platform is the one that supports the intended insurance operating model with clear responsibilities and manageable complexity.
The quote appeared instantly, the customer journey matched the brand, and a policy was issued within seconds as the dashboard updated. It was an effective demonstration of how an Insurtech platform could support a straightforward purchase journey, but evaluating the wider program requires a view of what happens before and after that transaction.
For example, a customer may enter incorrect information, change a policy or cancel and request a refund, while a business may need to update pricing or disclosures and an insurer’s system may occasionally be unavailable. These are normal parts of insurance operations, so the evaluation should consider how the platform supports the complete operating model as well as the initial purchase experience.
Look beyond features to the operating model
“Insurtech platform” can describe very different technology, ranging from specialist solutions for claims or pricing to infrastructure that connects distribution partners with insurers or supports product configuration, quotation, issuance, servicing, claims and reporting across a broader part of the lifecycle.
This means that a feature-by-feature comparison rarely reveals the differences that matter. Two platforms may both describe “policy administration” as supported, even though one handles amendments, cancellations, refunds and renewals within the platform while the other coordinates some of those activities through a service team or another system.
Before comparing platforms, describe the program that has to run: the customer, insurer and distributor, as well as the systems that must exchange information and the markets, volumes and servicing responsibilities involved. Once that operating model is clear, the evaluation can move from asking whether a feature exists to understanding how the program would work in practice.
Use a realistic customer journey
Most demonstrations begin with a standard journey in which an eligible customer provides complete information, the payment succeeds and the policy is issued. This confirms that the platform can perform the transaction, and the evaluation should then extend the scenario to show how the wider program would be operated.
Ask every shortlisted provider to work through the same realistic story, such as a travel platform offering cancellation insurance within its booking journey. After accepting the cover and receiving the policy, the customer changes the travel dates, which changes the premium, but the payment adjustment fails and the customer later cancels before contacting support about the outstanding refund.
Following that one customer through the platform can reveal more than dozens of isolated feature questions:
- Which system holds the current policy record?
- Can the change be made without reissuing the policy manually?
- How are the premium, tax and commission adjusted?
- What can the customer and support team see?
- Which organizations receive the new status?
- How are failed payments and refunds reconciled?
- Is there an audit trail of the original policy and every subsequent change?
The same exercise can be repeated for a claim or an unavailable connected system, with the provider identifying any steps performed by another system or team. A manual hand-off may be appropriate within the agreed operating model, but its ownership, cost and effect on service should be understood.
Because providers may define “end to end” differently, buyers should clarify whether the term includes servicing, claims, finance and reporting in addition to purchase and policy issuance. This makes it easier to compare the true scope of each solution and account for supporting processes.
Assess how product changes are managed
Although the first product launch often receives the most attention, the platform will also need to support later versions and program expansion. An insurer may update a rate, eligibility rule, coverage limit, disclosure or policy wording, while a distribution partner may introduce another brand or enter a market with different currency, language, tax and customer-journey requirements.
When a provider describes its platform as no-code or highly configurable, the useful question is not simply whether a visual editor exists, but what an authorized user can change safely, how the change is tested and approved, and whether it can be reused without creating another bespoke implementation.
During the evaluation, ask the provider to make a realistic product change and show the effective dates, version history, approval controls and separation between test and live environments. The demonstration should also explain what happens to existing quotes and in-force policies, because operational flexibility depends on both the ease of making a change and the ability to govern it.
The balance between standardization and customization also matters, as extensive custom work may suit the first program but make upgrades or expansion more difficult. A sustainable approach uses common components where the program can standardize and controlled variations where the product or market requires them.
The customer proposition and its governance remain important alongside the technology. In the UK, for example, the Financial Conduct Authority’s insurance product-governance rules address the target market, product testing, distribution arrangements and fair value. Requirements vary by jurisdiction, but the broader principle is useful: a platform should help the responsible parties govern the product and customer journey throughout its lifecycle.1
Evaluate integration through the flow of information
An API catalogue shows what is technically available, but the number of endpoints say nothing about how easily they support a complete insurance workflow. A more practical test is to follow one piece of information across the program: when a second product or a second distribution channel is launched, does the integration have to be rebuilt? When a customer cancels a policy, does the new status reach the customer channel, insurer, payment process, support team and reporting layer, and can a failed update be retried without creating a duplicate cancellation or refund?
The buyer’s technical team should use the documentation and sandbox directly so that it can find the workflow, understand the data, authenticate securely, interpret errors and see how versions are managed. Monitoring, reconciliation and usable exports are also important parts of the integration alongside the initial request.
Industry standards can reduce repeated mapping between insurance participants, and ACORD, for example, develops standards for insurance-data exchange. Although a platform does not need to use one standard for every interaction, it should be able to explain its data model and how it maps to the systems used by the program.2
Security should be considered as part of the integration design as well as through the formal security review. The OWASP API Security Top 10 highlights risks such as broken authentication and authorization security misconfiguration and unsafe use of third-party APIs, making it important to understand how access, sensitive data and failures are controlled across the complete flow.3
Examine resilience, security and data responsibilities
Resilience testing should consider both major disruptions and more common operating conditions, such as seasonal traffic peaks, cloud-service interruptions, deployment errors or the temporary unavailability of a connected insurer. Evidence should cover availability, monitoring, backup, recovery and tested continuity, as well as how incidents are detected, communicated and resolved. Service levels are most useful when they define operational outcomes and escalation in addition to availability.
Security certifications support this assessment, although they may not cover every service, environment or process involved in the proposed program, so their scope, date and material exceptions should be reviewed.
The evaluation should apply the same specificity to personal data by establishing what the platform receives, why it is required, where it is stored, who can access it and what happens at the end of the relationship. Under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 28 requires controllers to use processors that provide sufficient guarantees of appropriate measures, while other markets have their own requirements.4
Using an external platform does not transfer an insurer’s or intermediary’s regulatory responsibilities to the provider. In-scope EU financial entities, for example, have obligations relating to ICT risk and third-party dependencies under the Digital Operational Resilience Act, while FCA guidance for insurers addresses provider due diligence, continuity, audit access and transition; although these are jurisdiction-specific examples, they illustrate why governance and operational resilience form part of platform selection.5,6
Assess the provider alongside the technology
Successful delivery depends on both the technology and the provider’s understanding of insurance roles, insurer approvals, data mapping, payments, reconciliation and the practical work required from every participant.
Meeting the people who would deliver and support the program makes it possible to understand what they need from the insurer, intermediary, distribution partner and other suppliers, and then compare those dependencies with the proposed timeline and price. Customer references with comparable products, markets or operating models can also provide useful evidence about the delivery process, including which areas required additional work and how challenges were addressed.
The provider’s financial stability, subcontractors and service capacity also matter, and NIST’s cybersecurity supply-chain guidance recommends identifying and managing supplier risks across the lifecycle rather than treating due diligence as a one-time exercise.7
The evaluation should also test a possible future transition by establishing who owns the product configuration and data, what can be exported, in which format and at what cost, and how in-force policies would continue to be serviced. Addressing these points before contracting makes the longer-term operating model clearer.
Use the demonstration to collect comparable evidence
A useful evaluation can be organized around five connected scenarios rather than relying only on a catalogue of features:
| Ask the provider to show | What it reveals |
|---|---|
| A complete purchase and policy-issuance journey | Product fit, customer experience and system orchestration |
| A change, cancellation, refund and reconciliation | Servicing coverage and operational dependencies |
| A product or rule change moving from test to live | Configurability, governance and reuse |
| A failed payment or unavailable connected system | Error handling, resilience and operational visibility |
| A data export and audit history | Ownership, oversight and ability to exit |
For each scenario, record whether the capability was demonstrated, available through configuration, dependent on custom development or planned for a future release, with the score reflecting the strength of the evidence provided.
Mandatory security, regulatory, data and critical lifecycle requirements are better treated as pass-or-fail conditions rather than averaged into a total score. The providers that meet these conditions can then be compared on the quality of their evidence, delivery risk and total operating cost.
Total operating cost should include implementation, integration, configuration, transaction charges, support, expansion, custom changes and third-party services, with models for expected and higher volumes. This provides a more complete comparison than the license fee alone, particularly when some operational work sits outside the platform.
How discovermarket approaches platform evaluation
discovermarket works with insurers, brokers and distribution partners that are assessing embedded insurance technology, and the approach set out in this article reflects how those evaluations are structured in practice.
discovermarket’s platform supports no-code product configuration, distribution through APIs, SDKs, widgets and branded D2C sites, policy administration, claims workflows and performance reporting, and prospective partners are encouraged to work in the sandbox directly, ask to see the version history and approval controls behind a product change, and meet the team that would deliver the implementation.
Because discovermarket is a technology provider rather than an underwriter or intermediary, accountability for product governance, distribution and customer outcomes remains with the insurers and authorized intermediaries responsible for each program. Establishing that division of responsibility is part of the evaluation, not a matter to settle after contracting.
Frequently asked questions
What should a business evaluate first?
Start with the customer journey and insurance operating model by defining the product, participants, responsibilities, systems, markets and mandatory requirements before comparing providers.
Is an end-to-end platform always better?
Not always: a specialist platform can provide deeper capability in one area, while a broader platform can reduce separate systems and integrations, so the right choice depends on what is already in place and how the components will work together.
Are more APIs better?
Not necessarily, because the more relevant considerations are whether the APIs support complete workflows, consistent data, secure access, reliable status changes, error handling and reconciliation, as a larger number of endpoints may also require more assembly work.
Does no-code mean no technical integration is needed?
No-code usually describes how products or journeys are configured, while APIs may still move information between systems for quotation, issuance, servicing and status updates, which means the two approaches commonly work together.
Are security certifications sufficient?
Security certifications provide useful evidence, but they are not sufficient on their own because their scope, date and exceptions must be reviewed against the proposed service, data flows, dependencies and contractual commitments.
The decision after the demonstration
An effective demonstration should leave the evaluation team with a clear view of how the platform supports the program when products change, systems become unavailable, customers need assistance and several organizations need consistent information.
The final decision can therefore move beyond which presentation was most appealing and focus on a more useful question: which provider gave us the strongest evidence that we could operate this insurance program well?
About discovermarket
discovermarket works with insurers and distribution partners to build and operate digital insurance programs. Our technology supports product configuration, quotation, policy issuance, servicing, claims and reporting, while our teams work with partners on the commercial and operational setup required to launch and run the proposition.
Explore discovermarket’s embedded insurance technology