PolicyChat Carrier Comparison Methodology
PolicyChat Carrier Comparison Methodology
Effective: 2026. Maintained by: PolicyChat Editorial.
Carrier-vs-carrier comparisons on PolicyChat are evaluated against a multi-axis rubric, NOT a single composite “score.” We publish the sub-scores explicitly so a reader can weight them according to their own priorities.
The five comparison axes
- Filed baseline rate — from Rate Authority ledger; specific filing IDs cited. Position adjusted for the comparison profile.
- Claims experience — NAIC Complaint Index (lower = better) + publicly reported claims-payment-speed metrics where available.
- Coverage breadth — carrier-specific endorsements and exclusions relevant to the comparison profile. (E.g. “Guaranteed Replacement Cost” availability, “Accident Forgiveness” tiers, etc.)
- Financial strength — AM Best rating + S&P / Moody’s where applicable. Brand recognition does not enter this axis.
- Profile fit — whether the carrier writes the underlying profile at all (e.g. SR-22 availability, high-net-worth threshold, cedar-roof properties).
How the rubric is applied
For each comparison, we publish:
- A side-by-side table with sub-scores per axis
- A short narrative explaining where the carriers differ and why
- Conviction-tier on the overall winner (often directional, occasionally validated, never kill-log because at least one axis always carries signal)
Why we don’t publish a composite “score”
Composite scoring requires weighting choices that vary per consumer. A high-asset household weights coverage breadth + claims experience higher than a budget-constrained driver weighting baseline rate. Publishing a single composite implies a universal weighting that doesn’t exist.
Some comparison sites publish composite “best for X” scores. We publish the axis sub-scores and let the reader (or Sage) apply weights appropriate to their situation.
Maintained by PolicyChat Editorial.