Almost nobody in this category publishes a rate card, which makes it very hard to work out what you should be paying. This page is the buyer-side explainer we wanted when we started: the four pricing models used for renewal policy checking, what each one really meters, and the questions that move the quote. It is written for a retail agency principal or operations lead building a budget, not for a procurement team.
BindCheck quotes rather than publishes. Our own model is the third one below, a flat monthly subscription sized to renewal volume, and we will give you a number on the first call rather than after a discovery process. Everything here about other vendors is drawn from their public positioning and should be confirmed with them directly.
The four ways this work gets priced
Every quote you receive will be one of these, or a blend. The unit matters more than the headline rate, because the unit decides whether your bill tracks your renewal calendar or your headcount.
- Per policy checked. The offshore and onshore BPOs (Exdion, Patra, ReSource Pro, BackOffice Pro) price this way. You pay a transaction fee for each policy their team reviews, negotiated against a volume commitment. Efficient at high steady volume, unpredictable when your renewal count swings month to month.
- Per seat, per year. The enterprise AI platforms tend to land here, often with an annual contract and an implementation fee. You pay for the people who log in, which quietly penalises the agency that puts a second reviewer on the file, which is exactly the practice that catches the miss.
- Per check, on a flat monthly subscription. You buy a monthly throughput of comparisons and the number of users is irrelevant. This is BindCheck's model. It maps cleanly onto a renewal calendar you can already forecast.
- Per engagement. Operations consultancies (Xceedance and similar) scope a statement of work priced to dedicated headcount. It is the right shape for a large operation redesigning a process, and the wrong shape for checking forty renewals a month.
What moves the number in a quote
When you ask any vendor in this category for a price, these are the variables they are pricing against. Have the answers ready and the quote arrives faster and lands lower.
- Monthly renewal count, and how lumpy it is. A book with 1/1 and 7/1 concentrations costs more to staff than the same annual volume spread evenly, which is why the staffed models price your peak and the subscription models do not.
- Lines of business. A monoline GL book is cheaper to check than a package book carrying property, auto and work comp on the same account, because there are more schedules to reconcile per policy.
- Depth of the check. Confirming the form schedule and the dec-page numbers is a different job from reading manuscript endorsement wording, and the second one needs a person on somebody's payroll.
- Turnaround commitment. A guaranteed same-day return from a staffed team is a staffing promise, and it is priced as one.
- Whether the file leaves your office. Sending policies to an outside team carries a client-data review that software running on your own staff's screens does not.
What one check should include, whoever you buy from
Use this as the specification when you compare quotes. If a cheaper option omits half of it, it is not cheaper. A complete renewal check compares one renewal against one baseline, the expiring policy or the accepted quote, and reports every category of change:
- Forms added or dropped. A CG 20 37 (completed-operations additional insured) present last term and gone this term, or a new abuse-and-molestation exclusion.
- Edition-date changes. A newer edition of the CG 00 01 coverage form or the CP 10 30 causes-of-loss form can narrow the grant between editions.
- Limit, sublimit and deductible movement. Every dec-page figure compared prior against renewal, including separate wind, hail or named-storm percentage deductibles.
- Auto symbol and coverage-trigger shifts on the CA side, and Item 3.A state changes on work comp.
- Manuscript, carrier-drafted endorsements flagged for a human rather than auto-interpreted, with every finding cited to its source page so the record stands up in an E&O file.
Budgeting it against the exposure
The comparison that matters is not vendor against vendor, it is the cost of checking against the cost of not checking. Failure to procure the coverage the client asked for is one of the most common categories of agent E&O claim, and the defence turns on whether a dated record exists showing the renewal was compared and the client was told. See our guide to failure to procure coverage for how that fact pattern is built.
The honest framing on E&O credits: a documented, consistent checking procedure supports the procedures side of an errors-and-omissions review, and some agencies earn a premium credit through an audit such as the Big 'I' Best Practices Operational Improvement Review. The credit comes from passing that audit, not from buying software, and the terms belong to your E&O carrier. Confirm any credit with them before you count it in a budget.