- 977
I would argue the point about applied lacking carriers. It is compatible with more carriers than any other rater I've used.
The caveat here is that irixford is correct that it is not a traditional comparative rater. It only offers real time rating with one carrier that I do business with. The rest of them, you bridge and let it fill in the fields for you. Plan on spending 2-5 minutes on each carrier website.
If you know your carrier appetites and need only compare 2 or 3 of them it might be a good fit. If you're needing to compare half a dozen carriers, it's a much more serious time commitment.
I've only run across one carrier applied couldn't bridge to, because of the particular silverlight plugin their website uses. Another plus worth mentioning is it doesn't bowl over valuable prefill info the way other raters will.
I still find I rarely use it. Not sure why I am still paying for it other than the majority of my carriers simply aren't supported by other raters. Not even ezlynx.
The caveat here is that irixford is correct that it is not a traditional comparative rater. It only offers real time rating with one carrier that I do business with. The rest of them, you bridge and let it fill in the fields for you. Plan on spending 2-5 minutes on each carrier website.
If you know your carrier appetites and need only compare 2 or 3 of them it might be a good fit. If you're needing to compare half a dozen carriers, it's a much more serious time commitment.
I've only run across one carrier applied couldn't bridge to, because of the particular silverlight plugin their website uses. Another plus worth mentioning is it doesn't bowl over valuable prefill info the way other raters will.
I still find I rarely use it. Not sure why I am still paying for it other than the majority of my carriers simply aren't supported by other raters. Not even ezlynx.