Why brokers don’t trust InsurTechs (and how we got here)

There’s a clear trust gap between brokers and InsurTech businesses, and I’ve seen the lack of trust play out many times.

And what’s interesting is that inside that problem, there’s actually a big opportunity for the companies that get this right.

But it’s worth going over how we got here in the first place.

The 2026 Benevolent InsurTech Trust Index surveyed brokers across Canada, and the numbers are quite shocking.

• 67% of brokers believe InsurTech promises around time savings, efficiency, and ROI are overstated.

• Only 22% feel vendors are honest about features, pricing, and implementation.

• And just 23% believe vendors can be counted on to do what’s right.

It’s worth thinking about that for a second.

That’s not a niche opinion. That’s how most brokers currently view the vendors selling to them.

So how did it get to this point?

I don’t think most InsurTechs set out to mislead anyone. I genuinely don’t.

But there is a pattern that’s become quite normal.

The product is good, the team believes in it, the demo performs well. And from there, the instinct is to present the best possible version of what the product can do.

The most optimistic ROI, the fastest implementation timeline, the biggest impact in year one. All of which makes sense in the moment. The problem is what happens next.

Implementation is never as clean as the demo, edge cases appear, internal processes slow things down and things take longer, or deliver differently, than expected. That’s where the gap opens up. And brokers remember that gap.

Insurance is a relationship industry and trust really is the currency. When expectations and reality don’t quite line up, that experience doesn’t just disappear after the project ends. It gets talked about. Quietly, usually. But consistently.

One broker in the study put it quite bluntly: “Tech vendors in the insurance space suffer from the over-promise and under-deliver syndrome.”

Once that perception sets in, it’s hard to undo.

The Broker Spidey Senses

I was carrier side for years, and you develop a bit of a radar for this sort of thing.

Not because you’re cynical, but because you’ve seen enough promising technology struggle in the real world to know that the pitch is only part of the story.

Brokers are exactly the same.

What’s interesting is that this isn’t about resistance to technology. 57% of brokers in the study still agree that tech adds value to their organisation - so the appetite is there.

The hesitation is much more specific. It’s about whether vendors will be straight with them about what they’re actually buying.

They’re looking for proof that feels real, people they can speak to, and honest conversations about what the product can and can’t do.

Nothing particularly revolutionary. Just clarity.

So what actually needs to change?

A lot of it sounds obvious when you say it out loud, but it’s surprisingly rare in practice.

The companies that seem to build real traction with brokers tend to set more conservative expectations upfront, then outperform them. They’re clear about where the product is today, not just where it’s going. They treat implementation as part of the relationship, not just a technical step. And they invest in that relationship before they need something from it.

There’s also something in the data that’s worth paying attention to.

Only 9% of brokers felt that vendors had made sacrifices for them in the past - That says quite a lot.

It suggests that, for many brokers, vendors don’t feel like partners. They feel like something they’re being sold to.

And in an industry built on long-term relationships, that distinction matters.

The Opportunity

What I find interesting about all of this is what it means commercially.

If most of your competitors are contributing to a lack of trust, and you’re not, you already stand out.

You don’t necessarily need a more sophisticated product or a sharper pricing strategy.

You just need to do what you said you would do, be honest when things are harder than expected, and treat the relationship as something worth protecting.

In insurance, that kind of reputation builds slowly, but it does build. And once it’s there, it tends to stick.

Over time, that reputation either works in your favour or it doesn’t.

Most brokers already have a sense of which side vendors fall on.

What’s your experience been on either side of this?