Insurance · head to head
EIS Group vs Ivans
EIS Group
Insurance
Coretech platform for insurers, strongest in group and voluntary benefits
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
Ivans
Insurance
Carrier to agency data exchange infrastructure that sits under most US insurance agency management systems
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Each has a real cost: EIS Group implementations run for years and the integrator you choose determines whether the programme lands, so a strong software evaluation with a weak partner selection still fails.; Ivans applied Systems owns both Ivans and competing agency management systems, so the neutral infrastructure that every AMS depends on is controlled by one of the AMS vendors, a conflict that rival vendors have complained about for years.
- They diverge on capability: EIS Group covers Group and voluntary benefits, Ivans covers Ivans Download.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which EIS Group and Ivans actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Insurance).
What each one covers
Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.
Only in EIS Group
- Group and voluntary benefits
- OneSuite core applications
- Open API layer
- Cloud-native deployment
- Multi-line support
- Digital engagement
Only in Ivans
- Ivans Download
- Ivans Exchange
- Ivans Distribution
- Market Appetite
- Download analytics for carriers
- Commission download
What people use each for
The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.
EIS Group
- A carrier launching worksite or voluntary benefits products that need employer group and enrolment modellingnot Ivans
- A multi-line insurer consolidating property, life and benefits books onto one core vendornot Ivans
- A mainframe replacement where the target architecture must run in the carrier own cloud accountnot Ivans
- An insurer that needs core services callable individually rather than one monolithic suitenot Ivans
Ivans
- An agency evaluating a new management system that needs to confirm, carrier by carrier and line by line, which data will actually download before it signsnot EIS Group
- A carrier launching a new line that wants agency systems to receive policy data automatically rather than by rekeying from a portalnot EIS Group
- An MGA that wants its book visible to retail agencies in the same download flow as admitted carriersnot EIS Group
- An agency operations lead auditing why commission reconciliation keeps failing, which usually turns out to be a missing or misconfigured download connectionnot EIS Group
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
EIS Group
- Implementations run for years and the integrator you choose determines whether the programme lands, so a strong software evaluation with a weak partner selection still fails.
- The name recognition gap against Guidewire and Duck Creek means your reinsurers, auditors and incoming executives will ask you to justify the choice repeatedly over the life of the system.
- Benefits strength does not transfer to personal lines, where you are comparing on general capability and the incumbents have more comparable references.
- The microservices architecture that makes the platform flexible also raises the operational bar; carriers without a mature platform engineering function end up paying the vendor or an integrator to run it.
- Licence costs are quoted per programme and scale with premium or policy volume, so a book that grows faster than forecast produces a renewal conversation you have little leverage in.
Ivans
- Applied Systems owns both Ivans and competing agency management systems, so the neutral infrastructure that every AMS depends on is controlled by one of the AMS vendors, a conflict that rival vendors have complained about for years.
- Download coverage is decided by carriers, not by Ivans or your AMS, so a carrier that does not publish a line simply does not download it and no amount of configuration in your system will fix it.
- Eligibility requires that you are appointed and writing the line in that state, meaning newly appointed agencies wait on carrier-side setup with little visibility into where the request sits.
- Data quality varies sharply by carrier, and agencies routinely find that some carriers send incomplete or oddly mapped policy data that then has to be cleaned inside the AMS, undermining the point of automating it.
- Pricing is opaque and largely invisible to agencies because it is bundled into AMS and carrier agreements, which makes it impossible to judge what the network actually costs your business or to negotiate it.
Pricing, plan by plan
EIS Group
On request- EIS OneSuite$undefined/year
- Policy, billing, claims and customer applications
- Cloud deployment
- API access
Ivans
On request- Ivans$undefined/year
- Ivans Exchange is provided to agencies at no additional charge, with a possible fee for Citizens of Florida business
- Carrier and MGA participation, Ivans Distribution and appetite products are quoted
- Pricing is generally embedded in the agency management system or carrier agreement rather than billed separately to the agency
Which should you pick?
Choose EIS Group if
- You need group and voluntary benefits.
- You work on Web, API.
- You also want onesuite core applications.
Questions people ask
- Is EIS Group or Ivans better?
- Neither clearly leads. EIS Group starts at On request and Ivans at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, EIS Group or Ivans?
- EIS Group starts at On request and Ivans at On request.
- Does EIS Group or Ivans run on more platforms?
- EIS Group runs on Web, API. Ivans runs on Web.
- What is EIS Group best used for?
- EIS Group is most often used for a carrier launching worksite or voluntary benefits products that need employer group and enrolment modelling, a multi-line insurer consolidating property, life and benefits books onto one core vendor, a mainframe replacement where the target architecture must run in the carrier own cloud account, an insurer that needs core services callable individually rather than one monolithic suite. Of those, a carrier launching worksite or voluntary benefits products that need employer group and enrolment modelling and a multi-line insurer consolidating property, life and benefits books onto one core vendor are not what Ivans is typically brought in for.
- What can EIS Group do that Ivans cannot?
- EIS Group covers Group and voluntary benefits, OneSuite core applications, Open API layer, Cloud-native deployment. Ivans covers Ivans Download, Ivans Exchange, Ivans Distribution, Market Appetite.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
EIS Group: Who is EIS actually best for?
Carriers writing group or voluntary benefits, where the alternative is heavy customisation of a property and casualty platform that was never designed to model an employer group.
Ivans: Do agencies pay for Ivans?
Ivans Exchange is provided to agencies at no additional cost, with a noted exception for business written with Citizens of Florida. The economics sit with carriers and with the agency management system vendors.
EIS Group: Can it run in our own cloud account?
Yes. It is container-based and is deployed in customer-controlled cloud tenancies as well as the vendor cloud, which matters for carriers with data residency obligations.
Ivans: Why is a carrier not downloading?
Almost always eligibility or carrier-side publication: you must be appointed and writing that line in that state, and the carrier must publish that line for download. Check the connection status in Ivans Exchange first.
EIS Group: How much of the outcome depends on the integrator?
Most of it. Budget for the delivery partner as the larger line item and check references for the specific practice team, not the firm.
Ivans: Is Ivans owned by Applied Systems?
Yes. That matters because Applied also sells Applied Epic and EZLynx, so a competing AMS depends on infrastructure run by a competitor.
Ivans: Can you switch AMS and keep your downloads?
Connections have to be re-pointed to the new system, which is a per-carrier request through Ivans Exchange and is a common source of migration delay.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- EIS Group vs Guidewire PolicyCenter
- EIS Group vs Sapiens CoreSuite
- EIS Group vs Majesco
- EIS Group vs BriteCore
- EIS Group vs Socotra
- EIS Group vs Insurity Suite
- EIS Group vs INSTANDA
- EIS Group vs Duck Creek Policy
- EIS Group vs Origami Risk
- EIS Group vs Snapsheet Claims
- EIS Group vs Haven Life
- EIS Group vs Hippo
- EIS Group vs Indio
- EIS Group vs InsurancePro
- EIS Group vs InsuredMine
- EIS Group vs Guidewire InsuranceNow
- EIS Group vs Majesco Policy for L&A
- EIS Group vs Tarmika
- EIS Group vs NowCerts
- EIS Group vs QQCatalyst
- EIS Group vs Duck Creek
- EIS Group vs Guidewire ClaimCenter
- EIS Group vs HawkSoft
- EIS Group vs Embroker
- EIS Group vs FINEOS
- EIS Group vs Five Sigma
- EIS Group vs FRISS
- Ivans vs Guidewire PolicyCenter
- Ivans vs Sapiens CoreSuite
- Ivans vs Majesco
- Ivans vs BriteCore
- Ivans vs Socotra
- Ivans vs Insurity Suite
- Ivans vs INSTANDA
- Ivans vs Duck Creek Policy
- Ivans vs Origami Risk
- Ivans vs Snapsheet Claims
- Ivans vs Haven Life
- Ivans vs Hippo
- Ivans vs Indio
- Ivans vs InsurancePro
- Ivans vs InsuredMine
- Ivans vs Guidewire InsuranceNow
- Ivans vs Majesco Policy for L&A
- Ivans vs Tarmika
- Ivans vs NowCerts
- Ivans vs QQCatalyst
- Ivans vs Duck Creek
- Ivans vs Guidewire ClaimCenter
- Ivans vs HawkSoft
- Ivans vs Embroker
- Ivans vs FINEOS
- Ivans vs Five Sigma
- Ivans vs FRISS