July 4, 2026 · Updated September 5, 2026
A comparative rater and browser automation can both reduce repeated quoting work. Their names do not tell you which carriers they support, how far the process goes, or what your team must still review.
The useful comparison follows one of your accounts from source information to a result the agency can use. Measure that path instead of assuming a fixed percentage of quoting belongs to each category.
What a comparative rater does
A comparative rater uses applicant information to obtain results from multiple participating carriers. Product capabilities and completion steps vary. Examples include the EZLynx Rating Engine, Vertafore PL Rating, and commercial quoting products such as Tarmika.
Check the carrier, line, state, and risk combinations your agency needs. A connection may provide an indication, a quote with conditions, a referral, or a path requiring further steps. Do not assume every returned number has the same status.
What browser automation does
Browser automation performs supported actions through a website interface. In an agency workflow, that may involve entering reviewed information, navigating an application, and retrieving available quote details. It depends on the approved access arrangement and the configured task.
A visible carrier portal does not make every workflow supported. Authentication, conditional questions, site changes, and missing information can require a person. The product should show what completed and what remains.
Compare outcomes, not technical labels
| Check | What to establish with either approach |
|---|---|
| Input | Which current facts are required, and where do they come from? |
| Support | Does this carrier, line, state, and risk fit? |
| Missing answers | Are they made visible or silently defaulted? |
| Result | Is it an indication, quote, referral, decline, or unfinished task? |
| Recovery | Can the team understand and resume an interruption? |
| Review | Can a colleague inspect the source and important terms? |
| Handoff | Where is the reviewed outcome recorded? |
There may be overlap between products, and one agency may use several quoting paths. A clean existing connection is valuable. Browser work can be useful where a supported task still requires interaction with a site. Choose the path that completes the intended work reliably.
Run a practical test
Select a routine account and another with known complexity. Use the same permitted source information and required result. Count active staff time separately from elapsed waiting time.
Record additional questions, corrections, failed results, and steps completed outside the tool. Include the time needed to prepare the source information and produce a proposal afterward. A faster intermediate result may leave the overall task unchanged.
Review an interruption deliberately, using a safe test environment or the provider's demonstration. Ask what happens if authentication expires or a required answer is missing. A good outcome may be a clear pause for review rather than an attempted completion.
Where Relay fits
Relay can be evaluated on document preparation before rating, proposals after quotes return, and specifically configured browser workflows. Your team reviews the result and keeps ownership of the client decision.
Confirm the supported scope on the AI Quoting page and during setup. The quoting worksheet can help compare measured preparation and review effort using your agency's own inputs.
See the complete Relay task, from client information to a result your team can review.