I've started underwriting with a MassMutual policy, but my agent at NMFN is telling me he thinks I am making the wrong decision in going with MM instead of NMFN. He says that MassMutual always out-illustrates NMFN, but their actual performance is significantly worse than NMFN . When I was comparing policies, the MM policy was much better in terms of guaranteed cash value and death benefit, and the non-guaranteed dividends out-illustrated Northwestern after 30 years (Before 30 years, NMFN and MM are comparable. In the first 15 years, NMFN out-illustrates the MM policy). Just a note, I am comparing apples and oranges - a traditional 65Life vs an overfunded blended 65Life -- exact same premium amount, less initial death benefit with NMFN. Anyone had any experience with both? Or if anyone had a MM or NMFN policy, did they outperform or underperform the original non-guaranteed illustrations? My situation: I probably only need a small death benefit for the first 30 years. After 30 years, I'm much more interested in the policy as income (using the dividends only). I'm also planning to save up for a downpayment for a house in 2-3 years. My NMFN agent said that the MM policy is much more inflexible, and has almost no cash value in the first few years, which doesn't mesh with my buy a house goal. In 2-3 years, I would have a few thousand in cash value from the overfunded NMFN policy available for loan, versus almost nothing in MM. But after 30 years, the illustration isn't as good as MM's in terms of dividend income and cash value (death benefit beats MM's). So anyway...please let me know if you think I"m making a mistake going with MassMutual over Northwestern.