Softwr

Insurance · head to head

EIS Group vs INSTANDA

EIS Group logo

EIS Group

Insurance

Coretech platform for insurers, strongest in group and voluntary benefits

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
INSTANDA logo

INSTANDA

Insurance

No-code product builder that lets underwriters configure and launch insurance products themselves

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

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.; INSTANDA it is a product and policy layer, not a full core suite, so claims, finance, commissions and reporting are integrations you pay for separately and the total is well above the licence quote.
  • They diverge on capability: EIS Group covers Group and voluntary benefits, INSTANDA covers Browser-based product build.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which EIS Group and INSTANDA actually diverge.

Attributes where EIS Group and INSTANDA differ
AttributeEIS GroupINSTANDA

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), platforms (Web, API), 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 INSTANDA

  • Browser-based product build
  • Rating configuration
  • Document generation
  • Distribution portals
  • API access
  • Product versioning

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 INSTANDA
  • A multi-line insurer consolidating property, life and benefits books onto one core vendornot INSTANDA
  • A mainframe replacement where the target architecture must run in the carrier own cloud accountnot INSTANDA
  • An insurer that needs core services callable individually rather than one monolithic suitenot INSTANDA

INSTANDA

  • An MGA launching a niche product in weeks and iterating rating without a development cyclenot EIS Group
  • A broker building an own-brand scheme on top of a capacity agreementnot EIS Group
  • A carrier running product experiments away from the core policy systemnot EIS Group
  • An embedded insurance programme where the product must be exposed through a partner APInot 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.

INSTANDA

  • It is a product and policy layer, not a full core suite, so claims, finance, commissions and reporting are integrations you pay for separately and the total is well above the licence quote.
  • No-code configuration puts product logic in the hands of underwriters, which is fast but also means product changes can bypass the change control and testing discipline an IT-owned release would enforce.
  • Complex rating that needs external models, machine learning scores or intricate referral hierarchies pushes past what browser configuration handles cleanly.
  • Market presence is concentrated in the United Kingdom and Europe, so North American buyers will find fewer local references and less familiarity with state filing workflows.
  • As configuration grows across many product versions it becomes its own maintenance burden, and without discipline you accumulate variants nobody remembers the reason for.

Pricing, plan by plan

EIS Group

On request
  • EIS OneSuite$undefined/year
    • Policy, billing, claims and customer applications
    • Cloud deployment
    • API access

INSTANDA

On request
  • INSTANDA Platform$undefined/year
    • Product configuration environment
    • Policy administration
    • Distribution portals

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.
EIS Group review

Choose INSTANDA if

  • You need browser-based product build.
  • You work on Web, API.
  • You also want rating configuration.
INSTANDA review

Questions people ask

Is EIS Group or INSTANDA better?
Neither clearly leads. EIS Group starts at On request and INSTANDA at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, EIS Group or INSTANDA?
EIS Group starts at On request and INSTANDA at On request.
Does EIS Group or INSTANDA run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, API, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
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 INSTANDA is typically brought in for.
What can EIS Group do that INSTANDA cannot?
EIS Group covers Group and voluntary benefits, OneSuite core applications, Open API layer, Cloud-native deployment. INSTANDA covers Browser-based product build, Rating configuration, Document generation, Distribution portals.

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.

INSTANDA: Can underwriters really build products without developers?

Yes for mainstream product structures, and this is worth testing in a proof of concept with your own staff. Complex rating that calls external models still needs engineering.

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.

INSTANDA: Is it a complete core system?

No. It covers product, quoting and policy administration well. Claims, finance and commissions are separate systems you integrate.

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.

INSTANDA: Where is it strongest geographically?

The United Kingdom and Europe, particularly among MGAs. North American deployments exist but the reference base is younger.

Share

Related pages

More on EIS Group

More on INSTANDA

Keep looking

Other head to heads