Insurance Software Sector Outlook — September 2026

Read the report

SlidesScroll

1 of 19

←→Full screen

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › INSURANCE SOFTWARE

Insurance Software: Price Is Set in Private Hands

A narrow listed field sits over a deeper transaction record, and this report reads what buyers of insurance software are actually paying for.

September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential

Market data as of 2026-09-15 · primary valuation basis EV / Revenue (CY2025A)

Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential

Sources & methodology

1

← Previous

1 / 19 · INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › INSURANCE SOFTWARE

Next →

What each page shows

The analyst’s walkthrough of the deck, page by page.

1. 01

   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › INSURANCE SOFTWARE

   This is the cover slide for the Insurance Software sector outlook, dated September 2026.

   We open with the Insurance Software sector as of September 2026, where private buyers set the pricing signal and the listed tape offers a single reference point. This report reads what buyers are actually paying for across underwriting workbenches and carrier core systems.

   Everything on this page

   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › INSURANCE SOFTWARE Insurance Software: Price Is Set in Private Hands A narrow listed field sits over a deeper transaction record, and this report reads what buyers of insurance software are actually paying for. September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Market data as of 2026-09-15 · primary valuation basis EV / Revenue (CY2025A) Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 1

2. 02
   CONTENTS

   What This Report Covers

   This slide lists the five numbered sections and appendix that make up the report.

   We lay out the report's structure here: the bottom line first, then the companies, valuation and situations, the deal tape, and strategic implications. We put the bottom line first by design, so a reader who stops after section one still leaves with the full story. That structure lets us move from conclusion to evidence, not the other way around.

   Everything on this page

   CONTENTS What This Report Covers 01 The Bottom Line The Pricing Signal Sits in Private Deals, Not on the Listed Tape 02 The Companies Four of the Five Listed Names Sit in Underwriting Tooling and Carrier Core Delivery 03 Valuation & Situations One Computable Reading Marks the Discount End; Nothing Marks the Premium End 04 The Deal Tape Buyers Are Shopping for Claims Decisioning, Underwriting Content and Distribution Reach 05 Strategic Implications With No Public Benchmark, the Controllable Is Revenue Mix and Migration Position 06 Appendix Comparables Detail, Methodology, Sources and Assumptions Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 2

3. 03
   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE

   Private Buyers Set the Price for Underwriting Workbenches and Carrier Core Systems; The Listed Tape Is Thin

   This slide presents the bottom line: private buyers set the price for underwriting workbenches and carrier core systems, and the listed tape is thin.

   We start with the conclusion: across five listed insurance software companies, only one resolves to a usable EV / Revenue reading on CY2025A, at 0.5x. That leaves the transaction record, not the public market, carrying the pricing signal for underwriting workbenches and carrier core systems. So the evidence a client needs sits in the deal tape and the segment groupings that follow.

   Everything on this page

   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE Private Buyers Set the Price for Underwriting Workbenches and Carrier Core Systems; The Listed Tape Is Thin The full story on one page · figures on EV / Revenue (CY2025A), market data as of 2026-09-15 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-15; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2025A actuals (1 of 5 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Qualitative characterisations are NeuraCap views. Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 3 1 Two Groups Hold Most of the Listed Field Underwriting workbenches and rating engines, and core system implementation and managed services for carriers, hold 40% of the listed set each. Configuration, migration and post-go-live support holds the remaining 20%, a single name. 2 One Name in Five Carries a Computable Reading, at 0.5x Across the five listed names, a single company resolves to a usable EV / Revenue reading on CY2025A, and it sits at 0.5x. One reading is a reference point rather than a market benchmark, so pricing evidence has to come from the transaction record. 3 The Transaction Record Runs Deeper than the Listed One Six transactions sit in the tape, the largest of them at $5.3B in disclosed value, spanning claims analytics, underwriting content and distribution software. None carries a recomputable revenue multiple, so the tape evidences appetite and ticket size rather than a price. 4 What Buyers Reach for Is Content and System-of-Record Position The targets in this tape cluster around regulatory content, claims decisioning and modules that complete the policy, billing and claims spine. That profile is associated with contractual renewal and switching costs anchored in statutory reporting, which is what a buyer underwrites here. 0.5x Sector median EV/Revenue CY2025A consensus · 1 rated of 5 companies 6 Recorded transactions in this tier told as case studies in the deal section; the full tape is in the appendix

4. 04
   SECTION 02

   02

   This divider introduces section two, covering the five listed companies and their groupings.

   Four of the five listed names sit in underwriting tooling and carrier core delivery, split across three groups. We use this page to reset before walking through who they are and how they cluster. So what follows is a map of the listed field itself.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 02 02 THE COMPANIES Four of the Five Listed Names Sit in Underwriting Tooling and Carrier Core Delivery Three groups split the listed field: underwriting workbenches, core system delivery, and configuration and migration support. 02 of 06 Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 4

5. 05
   02 · THE COMPANIES

   Three Groups, Two of Them Tied for the Largest Share of the Listed Field

   This slide groups the five approved listed companies into three segments.

   We split the five listed names into three groups: underwriting workbenches and rating engines, core system delivery, and configuration and migration support. Two of those groups tie for the largest share, at 40% each, while configuration and migration support holds the remaining 20%. So the listed field is narrow, but it is not uniform, and where a company sits in this map matters for how buyers value it.

   Everything on this page

   02 · THE COMPANIES Three Groups, Two of Them Tied for the Largest Share of the Listed Field 5 approved companies · EV / Revenue (CY2025A) where rated · as of 2026-09-15 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-15; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Company descriptions are NeuraCap views grounded in the platform's classification rationale. Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 5 CCC CCC Enterprise value n/a EV/Revenue (CY2025A) n/a Revenue growth n/a EBITDA margin n/a Underwriting workbench and rating engines, and the buyer that closed the claims decisioning transaction on this tape in Dec-2024. EXLS EXLS Enterprise value n/a EV/Revenue (CY2025A) n/a Revenue growth n/a EBITDA margin n/a Core system implementation and managed services for carriers, where the platform-versus-delivery mix question is sharpest. FORTY FORTY Enterprise value $1.2B EV/Revenue (CY2025A) 0.5x Revenue growth n/a EBITDA margin n/a The single name in the set with a computable EV / Revenue reading on CY2025A; sits in core system implementation and managed services for carriers. GWRE GWRE Enterprise value n/a EV/Revenue (CY2025A) n/a Revenue growth n/a EBITDA margin n/a Underwriting workbench and rating engines, and an acquirer twice on this tape, adding to the policy, billing and claims spine. VRSK VRSK Enterprise value n/a EV/Revenue (CY2025A) n/a Revenue growth n/a EBITDA margin n/a The single listed name in configuration, migration and post-go-live support, the group closest to go-live execution.

6. 06
   SECTION 03

   03

   This divider introduces section three, covering public market valuation, drivers, situations and the owner agenda.

   One computable reading marks the discount end of this cohort, and nothing marks the premium end. EV / Revenue on CY2025A is our lead convention, and it resolves for a single name in the set. So the pages ahead show what that one reading tells us, and where it stops telling us anything.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 03 03 VALUATION & SITUATIONS One Computable Reading Marks the Discount End; Nothing Marks the Premium End EV / Revenue on CY2025A is the lead convention here, and it resolves for a single name in the set. 03 of 06 Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 6

7. 07
   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION

   The Listed Tape Gives One Price Point, and It Sits at the Discount End

   This slide shows the single computable EV / Revenue reading against the cohort, with other names marked not available.

   The listed tape gives us one price point on EV / Revenue for CY2025A, and it sits at the discount end of the range, at 0.5x. Every approved company is shown, but names without an eligible multiple are marked n/a rather than estimated. That single reading is a data point, not a market, so it cannot carry the pricing conversation on its own.

   Everything on this page

   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION The Listed Tape Gives One Price Point, and It Sits at the Discount End EV / Revenue (CY2025A) · every approved company shown; names without an eligible multiple are marked n/a · as of 2026-09-15 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-15; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2025A actuals (1 of 5 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). A ranked multiple chart is not drawn below four rated names; the readout shows each company against the 0.5x median of the rated set. Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 7 Company Ticker EV EV/Revenue (CY2025A) Rev growth EBITDA margin What sets the price CCC CCC n/a n/a n/a n/a Underwriting workbench and rating engines, and the buyer that closed the claims decisioning transaction on this tape in Dec-2024. EXLS EXLS n/a n/a n/a n/a Core system implementation and managed services for carriers, where the platform-versus-delivery mix question is sharpest. FORTY FORTY $1.2B 0.5x n/a n/a The single name in the set with a computable EV / Revenue reading on CY2025A; sits in core system implementation and managed services for carriers. GWRE GWRE n/a n/a n/a n/a Underwriting workbench and rating engines, and an acquirer twice on this tape, adding to the policy, billing and claims spine. VRSK VRSK n/a n/a n/a n/a The single listed name in configuration, migration and post-go-live support, the group closest to go-live execution. 6 Recorded transactions the deal tape in the next section prices what the public tape cannot $5.3B Largest recorded deal (Aug-2020) Roper Technologies, Inc. / Vertafore, Inc.

8. 08
   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS

   What Buyers Are Paying up for in Insurance Software

   This slide sets out the valuation drivers framework for insurance software, noting the rated names lack the estimates needed to split the cohort.

   We look at what buyers are paying up for in insurance software, using EV / Revenue on CY2025A as the basis. In this cohort, the rated names don't carry the additional estimates needed to split the group into faster- and slower-growing peers. So the driver read here stays qualitative, grounded in the segment and deal evidence rather than a populated multiple split.

   Everything on this page

   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS What Buyers Are Paying up for in Insurance Software EV / Revenue (CY2025A) · as of 2026-09-15 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-15; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Cohort medians on rated names with the required estimates (faster n=0; slower n=0). Driver readings are NeuraCap views on the supplied data — association, not causation. Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 8 Suite Completion Beats the Point Tool Both Guidewire Software, Inc. (GWRE) transactions in this tape acquired capability that slots into the core spine rather than standing beside it. The pattern suggests buyers pay for the module that turns a point relationship into a suite relationship with the same carrier. Migration Position Separates Two Valuation Regimes An installed base that has already absorbed the move to cloud subscription looks different to one still carrying it, even at the same revenue. Cohort progress and the migration commitment of legacy accounts are what quality-of-revenue diligence tests first. Regulatory Content Is a Product, Not a Build State-by-state rate and form filing obligations make maintained content a recurring deliverable with a renewal attached. Vendors whose content sits inside the carrier's statutory reporting path hold a position that is associated with longer terms and contracted uplift. Data Exhaust Is Bought Separately from Workflow Analytics franchises buy for content and for the transaction flow that feeds their models, and they will pay for the data rights rather than the software wrapped around them. Owners with proprietary claims or policy flow should know which of the two a buyer pool is actually valuing.

9. 09
   03 · SITUATION MAP

   How to Read the Four Situations Once Margin Coverage Exists

   This slide maps situations by EV / Revenue against the sector median and EBITDA margin against the covered median.

   We cut the field on EV / Revenue against the sector median of 0.5x and on EBITDA margin against the covered median, though one rated name lacks the second measure and isn't mapped. This produces four situations rather than four recommendations, characterising where a company sits rather than what to do about it. So the map is a starting point for the owner's own diagnosis, not a verdict.

   Everything on this page

   03 · SITUATION MAP How to Read the Four Situations Once Margin Coverage Exists Cut on EV / Revenue vs the sector median (0.5x) (rows) and EBITDA margin vs the covered median (n/a) (columns) · 1 rated names without the second measure are not mapped · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-15; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Situation boundaries are the cohort's own medians (Directional, NeuraCap view). This page characterises situations; it does not recommend buying or selling any security. Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 9 Paid up and Profitable Above-median multiple · above-median EBITDA margin 0 names No rated names sit in this cell as of the analysis date. Paid up on Future Margin Above-median multiple · below-median EBITDA margin 0 names No rated names sit in this cell as of the analysis date. Cash-Generative and Overlooked Below-median multiple · above-median EBITDA margin 0 names No rated names sit in this cell as of the analysis date. Priced Low on Both Tests Below-median multiple · below-median EBITDA margin 0 names No rated names sit in this cell as of the analysis date.

10. 10
    03 · THE AGENDA

    Four Questions an Owner in This Sector Should Resolve First

    This slide poses four questions an owner or acquirer in this sector should resolve first.

    We frame four questions any owner or acquirer in this sector should answer first, grounded in the cohort data shown earlier. These are observations, not recommendations, and they set up the operating levers we return to in the strategic implications section. So the agenda turns the valuation evidence into a checklist a board can actually work through.

    Everything on this page

    03 · THE AGENDA Four Questions an Owner in This Sector Should Resolve First NeuraCap view · framed as the questions an owner or acquirer should resolve · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-15; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All content on this page is Directional — NeuraCap advisory judgment grounded in the cohort data shown earlier. It does not constitute investment advice. Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 10 Decide Which Lens Your Revenue Mix Invites Subscription-weighted platforms are underwritten on recurring revenue; services-weighted businesses are underwritten on cash earnings. The split between subscription, perpetual licence, maintenance and implementation services is an operating choice that decides which conversation a buyer opens with. What changes the answer: A sustained move in the services-to-product revenue ratio across two renewal cycles. Own the Migration Position Rather than Carry It An installed base still on perpetual licence with no migration commitment is the detractor buyers price hardest in this sector. Converting cohorts, and contracting the commitment as part of renewal, changes the quality of the revenue base rather than its size. What changes the answer: Cloud migration cohort progress and the share of the base under a committed migration path. Make Regulatory Content a Renewing Obligation Forms, rules and rates maintenance sits inside the carrier's statutory reporting path, which is where switching costs are structural rather than habitual. Pricing that content as a recurring deliverable with contracted uplift is associated with longer terms and firmer renewals. What changes the answer: Renewal term length and contracted uplift on content-linked modules. Know Which Buyer Pool Your Asset Speaks To Vertical platforms want the module that completes the policy, billing and claims spine; data franchises want transaction flow and data rights; sponsors want recurring revenue and switching costs. Those pools value different assets inside the same company, and product and pricing choices decide which one is listening. What changes the answer: Which of your modules a carrier buyer would consume first without a new procurement cycle.

11. 11
    SECTION 04

    04

    This divider introduces section four, covering the deal tape across six recorded transactions.

    Buyers here are shopping for claims decisioning, underwriting content and distribution reach, across six recorded transactions. We price these as recorded in the filings, not as disclosed multiples. So the pages ahead read the deal record for pricing signal, not the listed market.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 04 04 THE DEAL TAPE Buyers Are Shopping for Claims Decisioning, Underwriting Content and Distribution Reach Six transactions across eight years, priced as recorded in the filings rather than as disclosed multiples. 04 of 06 Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 11

12. 12
    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES

    Six Transactions Show Who Is Buying and at What Ticket Size

    This slide walks through three of the six recorded transactions as case studies, with the complete tape in the appendix.

    We walk through three of the six recorded transactions in detail, with multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed. Several tape records carry data-quality flags, so figures are shown as recorded in the filing rather than adjusted. These deal multiples sit on a different basis than the CY2025A public reading, so we don't claim a spread between them; the largest disclosed transaction in the tape reached $5.3B. So the case studies show buyer intent and ticket size, which is the evidence this sector actually offers.

    Everything on this page

    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES Six Transactions Show Who Is Buying and at What Ticket Size 3 of 6 recorded transactions, told as case studies · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · the complete tape is in the appendix · as of 2026-09-15 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-15; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 17 tape record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; duplicate filings collapsed; financial target ev not meaningful); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 9 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the tape and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2025A public basis and no spread is claimed. "Why the deal happened" is a NeuraCap read of the recorded evidence. Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 12 Apr-2025 $57M Sapiens International Corporation N.V. Sapiens buys AdvantageGo: specialty underwriting capability, added at tuck-in size EV / LTM revenue n/a EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The transaction suggests a platform buyer adding specialty and commercial underwriting capability to an existing carrier footprint rather than buying scale. Announced in Apr-2025 and recorded as announced status, it reads as capability acquisition alongside a second deal in the same month. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED Disclosed value is $57M as recorded in the filing, with no revenue or earnings multiple disclosed or recomputable. It benchmarks as the second-smallest ticket in this six-deal tape, so it evidences appetite and size rather than a price level for the sector. Apr-2025 $22M Sapiens International Corporation Sapiens adds Candela in the same month, extending a programmatic buying pattern EV / LTM revenue n/a EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED Two announced acquisitions inside Apr-2025 by the same buyer group suggest a deliberate programme of adding adjacent capability around a shared carrier customer. The structure is consistent with buy-and-build behaviour rather than a one-off strategic move. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED Disclosed value is $22M as recorded in the filing, with no multiple disclosed or recomputable. It is the smallest ticket in this tape and sets the floor of the observable range rather than a benchmark multiple. Dec-2024 $428M CCC Intelligent Solutions Holdings Inc. CCC closes EvolutionIQ: claims decisioning bought by a claims network at scale EV / LTM revenue n/a EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED A buyer already carrying claims transaction flow acquiring an AI claims decisioning target suggests the logic is data and workflow adjacency inside the claims path. It is recorded as closed rather than announced, so the transaction has cleared conditions and integration risk is the live question. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED Disclosed value is $428M as recorded in the filing, with no revenue or earnings multiple disclosed or recomputable. Against this tape it is the largest ticket other than the distribution software transaction, which marks how buyers size claims decisioning relative to core administration assets.

13. 13
    SECTION 05

    05

    This divider introduces section five, on strategic implications when there is no public benchmark to set the price.

    With no public benchmark, what an owner can move is revenue mix and migration position. This section turns the evidence into operating levers for owners, acquirers and boards. So the argument shifts here from what the market shows to what a company can control.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 05 05 STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS With No Public Benchmark, the Controllable Is Revenue Mix and Migration Position What an owner can move operationally when the comparable set will not set the price. 05 of 06 Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 13

14. 14
    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

    What the Evidence Means for Owners, Acquirers and Boards

    This slide sets out what the evidence means for owners, acquirers and boards over the next twelve months.

    For owners, revenue quality — the mix of subscription, services and renewal terms — is the lever the public tape cannot give them. For acquirers, ticket sizes in this tape cluster small, so underwriting the same pattern means paying for suite completion and data rights. For boards, segment position — where a business sits between underwriting tooling, core delivery and migration support — is associated with the lens buyers apply. So these are the questions this data puts on the table for the next twelve months.

    Everything on this page

    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS What the Evidence Means for Owners, Acquirers and Boards NeuraCap view · the questions this data puts on the table for the next twelve months Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-15; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. This page is Directional — NeuraCap views drawn from the analysis in this report. Observations, not recommendations. Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 14 FOR OWNERS Revenue Quality Is the Lever the Public Tape Cannot Give You With one computable listed reading in a five-name field, no public benchmark will set your price. The operating levers that move it are mix between subscription and services, renewal terms with contracted uplift, and how much customer-funded customisation the codebase carries. FOR ACQUIRERS Ticket Sizes in This Tape Cluster Small, with Occasional Scale Four of the six transactions here are capability additions rather than platform purchases, and the buyers repeat. Underwriting the same pattern means paying for suite completion and data rights, and testing go-live risk and tier-one account concentration before earnings base. FOR BOARDS Segment Position Is the Clearest Value Signal Available Here Where a business sits between underwriting tooling, core delivery and migration support is associated with the lens buyers apply and the pool that shows up. Capital allocation and build-versus-buy decisions inside those groups matter more to standing than any single reading on the listed tape.

15. 15
    SECTION 06

    06

    This divider introduces the appendix, covering the full comparable universe, methodology and sources.

    This section carries the full universe, the valuation basis and where every underlying disclosure lives. We use it as the reference layer behind every figure in the body of the report. So a client can trace any number back to its source from here.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 06 06 APPENDIX The Full Universe, Methodology and Sources Comparables detail behind every figure in the body, the valuation basis, and where each underlying disclosure lives. 06 of 06 Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 15

16. 16
    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1)

    Public Comparables on EV / Revenue (CY2025A), Grouped by Valuation Tier

    This slide lists the public comparables on EV / Revenue, grouped by valuation tier, with tickers linked to source.

    We group the public comparables here by valuation tier against the 0.5x sector median, with one rated company and four not rated for lack of an eligible multiple. Tickers link to the underlying source so a client can verify any figure directly. So this page is the full public record behind the single reading discussed earlier in the report.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1) Public Comparables on EV / Revenue (CY2025A), Grouped by Valuation Tier Teal shading marks a EV/Revenue above the sector median (0.5x); amber marks below · 1 rated companies; 4 not rated (no eligible EV/Revenue) · tickers link to the underlying source · as of 2026-09-15 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-15; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All 1 rated rows are in this appendix and in the companion workbook, which carries the complete field set. Names without an eligible multiple are listed in the companion workbook. Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 16 Company Ticker Segment EV EV/Revenue (CY2025A) Rev growth EBITDA margin Rule of 40 DISCOUNT — <0.5x · median 0.5x · 1 companies FORTY FORTY Core system implementation and managed services for carriers $1.2B 0.5x n/a n/a n/a

17. 17
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 1)

    The Full Deal Tape, Newest First

    This slide lists the full deal tape of six recorded transactions, newest first, with values linked to filings.

    This is the complete deal tape: six recorded transactions, newest first, with multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed. Several records carry data-quality flags and are shown as recorded in the filing rather than adjusted, and a number of transactions without a disclosed value or multiple sit in the companion workbook instead. So this page is the full pricing evidence this sector offers, alongside the single public reading shown earlier.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 1) The Full Deal Tape, Newest First 6 recorded transactions in this tier · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · deal values link to the underlying filing · as of 2026-09-15 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-15; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 17 tape record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; duplicate filings collapsed; financial target ev not meaningful); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 9 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the tape and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2025A public basis and no spread is claimed. Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 17 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Apr-2025 Sapiens International Corporation N.V. → AdvantageGo $57M n/a n/a Sapiens International Corporation N.V. announced the acquisition of AdvantageGo in Apr-2025 at $57M as recorded in the filing. The ticket sits at the tuck-in end of this tape, consistent with buying specialty underwriting capability rather than scale. Apr-2025 Sapiens International Corporation → Candela $22M n/a n/a Sapiens International Corporation announced the acquisition of Candela in Apr-2025 at $22M as recorded in the filing. Two announced transactions in a single month suggest a programmatic approach to adding capability around an existing carrier relationship. Dec-2024 CCC Intelligent Solutions Holdings Inc. → EvolutionIQ Inc. $428M n/a n/a CCC Intelligent Solutions Holdings Inc. closed the acquisition of EvolutionIQ Inc. in Dec-2024 at $428M as recorded in the filing. It is the completed transaction in this tape, and the target sits in claims decisioning rather than core administration. Aug-2020 Roper Technologies, Inc. → Vertafore, Inc. $5.3B n/a n/a Roper Technologies, Inc. announced the acquisition of Vertafore, Inc. in Aug-2020 at $5.3B as recorded in the filing. It is the largest disclosed value in this tape and sits in distribution software rather than the carrier core. Oct-2017 Guidewire Software, Inc. → Cyence Inc. $265M n/a n/a Guidewire Software, Inc. announced the acquisition of Cyence Inc. in Oct-2017 at $265M as recorded in the filing. The structure suggests a core suite vendor adding risk analytics that its carrier base could consume through an existing relationship. Feb-2017 Guidewire Software, Inc. → ISCS, Inc. $155M n/a n/a Guidewire Software, Inc. announced the acquisition of ISCS, Inc. in Feb-2017 at $155M as recorded in the filing. Together with the later transaction, it shows the same buyer adding to the policy, billing and claims spine over successive years.

18. 18
    06 · METHODOLOGY

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality

    This slide explains the report's sources, assumptions and data-quality treatment.

    We set out here how this report was built: the valuation basis, what was excluded, and where every underlying disclosure lives. This is the page to check before citing any figure from the body of the report externally. So it is the reference a client's own team can use to reproduce or challenge our reading.

    Everything on this page

    06 · METHODOLOGY Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality How this report was built, what was excluded, and where every underlying disclosure lives · as of 2026-09-15 Typeface note: NeuraCap brand face is Kallisto Medium; this build renders in a standard sans (Arial) and should be reviewed in the brand face before external distribution. Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential 18 VALUATION BASIS Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2025A actuals (1 of 5 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). EV / Revenue on CY2025A is the lead convention: it is the sector-appropriate prior for Insurance Software and it clears the coverage gate with 5 of 5 companies (100%). No secondary cross-check clears its own gate. DATA QUALITY & EXCLUSIONS 1 records were excluded or quarantined by the platform's validation gates (unit errors, implausible ratios, ineligible securities and classification failures); the full ledger ships in the companion tables and never feeds a statistic in this report. DEFINITIVE VS DIRECTIONAL Definitive content is disclosed or consensus data passed through stated arithmetic. Directional content — tier boundaries, situation cuts, "why it matters" commentary, the agenda pages — is NeuraCap analyst judgment and is labeled as such where it appears. WHAT THIS REPORT IS NOT This report characterises a sector. It does not recommend buying, selling or holding any security, and no statement in it should be read as investment advice or a price target. WHERE THE DATA LIVES 249 registered source documents stand behind the figures in this report. Metric hyperlinks throughout the deck open the specific filing or data record; by publisher: sec.gov (248) · home.treasury.gov (1). The companion workbook beside this deck carries the complete source index.

19. 19

    Private Deals Carry the Pricing Signal; The Listed Tape Offers One Reference Point.

    This is the closing slide, restating that private deals carry the pricing signal while the listed tape offers one reference point.

    Private deals carry the pricing signal in this sector; the listed tape offers one reference point. The companion tables carry the full universe, the exclusion ledger and the complete source index for any figure a client wants to trace. So the takeaway is simple: read the transaction record first, and treat the public multiple as context.

    Everything on this page

    Private Deals Carry the Pricing Signal; The Listed Tape Offers One Reference Point. NeuraCap AI — Insurance Software Coverage September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Insurance Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential Sources & methodology 19

More coverage in Information Technology

• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 11, 2026Insurance Software Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — August 28 – September 11, 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 15, 2026Automotive Semiconductors Sector Outlook — September 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 15, 2026Cloud Infrastructure and Platform Services Sector Outlook — September 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 15, 2026Customer Experience and Engagement Software Sector Outlook — September 2026