For a small healthcare practice comparing cyber insurance, the honest answer is that there is no single best carrier, only a best fit. In one real comparison we ran for a small mental-health practice, seven markets quoted the same one-million-dollar limit and the total annual cost ranged from about nine hundred thirty dollars to about seventeen hundred dollars. The lowest total came from At-Bay, a non-admitted, security-focused market. But price was not the whole story, because the coverage behind each limit differed.
The markets we compared
The seven markets fall into a few camps. You can read a fuller profile of each on its page:
- Technology-led markets that scan and monitor your risk: Coalition, At-Bay, Corvus, and Cowbell.
- Established specialty insurers with deep breach-response services: Beazley and CFC.
- The excess and surplus lines strength of the Chubb group: Westchester.
Where each tends to fit
The technology-led markets reward good security hygiene, which can mean competitive pricing for a practice with multi-factor authentication and solid backups. At-Bay came in lowest here, and Coalition, Corvus, and Cowbell all bring continuous monitoring. The specialty insurers, Beazley and CFC, are known for broad wordings and mature breach-response teams, which matters when an incident actually happens. Westchester brings the financial strength of a large group on a surplus-lines basis. None of these is a weakness in another. They are different priorities.
Price is not the whole comparison
Every market quoted the same one-million-dollar limit, but the coverage that responds to the most likely loss varied. Cyber crime and social engineering were commonly sublimited to two hundred fifty thousand dollars, and invoice manipulation ranged from fifty thousand to two hundred fifty thousand dollars across the carriers. Ransomware was handled as reimbursement by some and pay-on-behalf by others. Some included a cyber risk report and proactive monitoring; others did not. A lower premium that sublimits your most likely loss more tightly is not a better deal.
Admitted or non-admitted
Four of the seven quoted on an admitted basis and three on a non-admitted, surplus-lines basis. Admitted policies carry state guaranty-fund backing and standardized filings. Non-admitted policies are often more flexible and, as in this comparison, can be the most competitively priced. Neither is automatically better. We walk through the trade-off in admitted vs non-admitted cyber.
How we would choose
We do not pick a winner and steer everyone to it. We compare the markets on equal coverage, look at your security controls and record volume, and match the fit to your practice, whether that means the lowest-cost option, the broadest wording, or the strongest breach-response bench. That comparison is the value of working with an independent agency rather than buying one brand direct.
Questions to ask your advisor
- Are these quotes being compared on equal coverage, or just on price?
- What sublimit does each carrier put on social engineering and invoice manipulation?
- Which of these markets rewards the security controls I already have?
- Is this policy admitted or non-admitted, and does that matter for my practice?
- Which carrier has the breach-response capability I would want if an incident happened?
Want guidance first? Compare your coverage. Already know what you need? Get a quote.