Editorial standards

Review methodology

Our job is not to crown the vendor with the longest feature list. It is to match software to a specific insurance-sales workflow and disclose where our business model could bias that judgment.

What we score

  • Lead-response workflow
  • Producer adoption
  • Pipeline clarity
  • Communication tools
  • Automation depth
  • Integration / export
  • Implementation burden
  • Insurance-operational fit

What we do not do

We do not award a higher ranking because a vendor pays a larger commission. We do not call a generic CRM “insurance-native” just because custom fields can be created. We separate vendor facts from our editorial judgment.

CRM and AMS roles
Our reviews explicitly distinguish sales CRM from insurance operations.

Evidence standard

Pricing, plan structure and affiliate terms are checked against vendor documentation when pages are materially updated. Competitive claims from vendor-owned articles are treated as marketing claims unless independently verified.

Scoring

Numeric scores are editorial shorthand, not laboratory measurements. The written “best for / skip if” guidance carries more weight than a decimal score.

Affiliate disclosure

Some reviewed companies may pay us if a reader becomes a customer through our link. That commercial relationship is disclosed and is structurally separated from the ranking logic.