MyFinancialPrograms

MFP’s Community Home Insurance Survey provide statistic and research on which providers homeowners recommend; broken down by state and major cities.The report highlight over 125,000 homeowners experiences with more than 5,000 insurers, agents and brokers reviewing application process, rates, support, and overall satisfaction. The report also surveys home insurance cost/premiums by home values and deductibles

Whether you’re getting your first home insurance, searching for better or cheaper insurance, you’ll find useful, straightforward insights. The community survey for home insurance is below.

Updated: January 8, 2026

Home Insurers Recommendations by State

You can also see reports on homeowners insurance cost and insurers results state by state and main cities.

States Home Premiums Average by Home Values

Across the nation, the average home insurance premium for a $300K home is $1,568. For a $400K home, the average rises to $2,088, and for a $600K home, it climbs to $2,906.

Some states, however, face much higher premiums. For a $300K home, the highest average premiums are found in Florida ($3,880), Oklahoma ($3,615), and Mississippi ($3,384). When looking at $600K homes, the top three are Oklahoma ($7,195), Florida ($6,738), and Mississippi ($6,248).

On the other end of the spectrum, Oregon consistently offers some of the lowest premiums, with averages of $662 for a $300K home, $922 for a $400K home, and $1,442 for a $600K home.

The average state premiums below are for a $1,000 deductible.

Highest Premiums City by State

The table below shows the cities with the highest premiums in each of the 50 states for $300K and $600K homes (and $1,000 deductible).

State	$300K Home	$400K Home	$600K Home
National Average	$1,568	$2,088	$2,906
Alabama	$2,314	$3,166	$4,625
Alaska	$1,504	$1,769	$2,401
Arizona	$1,300	$1,888	$2,391
Arkansas	$1,071	$1,424	$2,066
California	$835	$1,208	$2,045
Colorado	$2,577	$3,496	$4,410
Connecticut	$1,678	$2,120	$2,858
Delaware	$994	$1,260	$1,898
Florida	$3,880	$4,958	$6,738
Georgia	$1,985	$2,675	$4,013
Hawaii	$1,078	$1,324	$1,823
Idaho	$851	$1,144	$1,689
Illinois	$1,363	$1,688	$2,276
Indiana	$1,293	$1,696	$2,244
Iowa	$998	$1,239	$1,850
Kansas	$2,744	$3,324	$3,911
Kentucky	$1,868	$2,721	$3,602
Louisiana	$2,416	$3,408	$4,813
Maine	$1,110	$1,506	$2,179
Maryland	$950	$1,345	$1,775
Massachusetts	$1,088	$1,522	$2,197
Michigan	$1,340	$1,702	$2,552
Minnesota	$1,792	$2,413	$3,424
Mississippi	$3,384	$4,268	$6,248
Missouri	$2,980	$4,059	$5,889
Montana	$1,048	$1,300	$1,945
Nebraska	$2,681	$3,374	$5,062
Nevada	$832	$1,035	$1,473
New Hampshire	$1,042	$1,387	$1,905
New Jersey	$1,058	$1,351	$1,644
New Mexico	$1,062	$1,382	$1,787
New York	$1,518	$2,275	$2,751
North Carolina	$1,323	$1,732	$2,169
North Dakota	$917	$1,139	$1,699
Ohio	$1,241	$1,577	$2,163
Oklahoma	$3,615	$5,400	$7,195
Oregon	$662	$922	$1,442
Pennsylvania	$1,274	$1,647	$2,304
Rhode Island	$1,406	$1,845	$2,580
South Carolina	$2,320	$2,918	$4,281
South Dakota	$915	$1,136	$1,694
Tennessee	$1,925	$2,769	$3,661
Texas	$2,468	$3,632	$4,726
Utah	$914	$1,148	$1,725
Vermont	$1,058	$1,441	$2,153
Virginia	$1,292	$1,896	$2,538
Washington	$905	$1,205	$1,813
West Virginia	$1,052	$1,262	$1,710
Wisconsin	$1,423	$1,999	$2,971
Wyoming	$1,069	$1,327	$1,980

Most Recommended Insurer by States

Find which insurers are the most recommended in each state: Top 1, top 3, top 5 and top 10.

USAA lead being #1 in 34 states, Amica is in the top 3 in 39 states, State Farm is in top 5 in 45 states, and Nationwide is in the top 10 in 43 states.

Insurer	Top 1	Top 3	Top 5	Top 10
USAA	34	45	45	45
Amica	9	39	45	46
State Farm	2	32	45	49
Nationwide	1	7	22	43
Chubb	1	6	14	30
NJM	1	1	1	1
USAA*	1	1	1	1
Allstate	0	3	19	47
Travelers	0	3	14	43
Auto-Owners	0	3	7	12
Erie	0	3	5	11
American Family	0	1	7	15
Lemonade	0	1	2	16
Vermont Mutual	0	1	1	2
Cincinnati Insurance	0	1	1	1
Liberty Mutual	0	0	4	37
Farmers	0	0	4	30
The Hartford	0	0	1	2
COUNTRY Financial	0	0	1	1
AAA	0	0	1	1
Island Insurance	0	0	1	1
Westfield Insurance	0	0	1	1
Safety Insurance	0	0	1	1
Frankenmuth Insurance	0	0	1	1
Kin	0	0	1	1
Progressive	0	0	0	7
GEICO	0	0	0	5
Country Financial	0	0	0	5
Openly	0	0	0	3
Mercury	0	0	0	2
The Hanover	0	0	0	2
Kin Insurance	0	0	0	1
The Hartford (AARP)	0	0	0	1
Umialik	0	0	0	1
Farm Bureau Mutual of Arkansas	0	0	0	1
Shelter	0	0	0	1
Homesite	0	0	0	1
Encompass	0	0	0	1
Tower Hill	0	0	0	1
Florida Peninsula	0	0	0	1
RLI	0	0	0	1
First Insurance Company of Hawaii	0	0	0	1
DB Insurance	0	0	0	1
Hawaiian Insurance and Guaranty Company	0	0	0	1
ASI	0	0	0	1
Mississippi Farm Bureau	0	0	0	1
American Modern	0	0	0	1
Concord Group	0	0	0	1
NYCM Insurance	0	0	0	1
Erie Insurance	0	0	0	1
American Farmers & Ranchers	0	0	0	1
Oklahoma Farm Bureau	0	0	0	1
Andover Companies	0	0	0	1
Concord Group Insurance	0	0	0	1
GEICO (via partners)	0	0	0	1
Westfield	0	0	0	1
West Bend	0	0	0	1
Foremost Insurance	0	0	0	1
AMCO Insurance	0	0	0	1

Home Insurance Providers: Homeowners Perspective

Home insurance providers (Brokers, Direct Insurers, and local Agents) show regional variations in performance across coverage, cost, ease, and client experience. Homeowners can use these trends to choose the provider type that best aligns with their needs.

Northeast

• Insurers: Stand out in the Northeast, leading all types with Coverage (4.41) and Client Experience (4.32). They balance good cost (3.84) with steady recommendation (~80%). Reliable choice for those prioritizing stability and broad coverage.
• Brokers: Strong on Client Experience (4.07) but weaker on Coverage (3.75). They are more expensive (Cost 4.09), which may explain why Recommendation is modest (~80%). Good if service quality outweighs cost concerns.
• Agents: Middle of the pack with decent Coverage (3.89) and Ease (4.00). They trail Insurers by ~1 point in Coverage but keep costs slightly lower.

Trend: The Northeast favors large insurers for best coverage and consistency, while Brokers have higher cost for service.

Midwest

• Insurers: Top-rated for Coverage (4.29) and Client Experience (4.15). Recommendation Rate ~82.5% is among the highest in the region.
• Brokers: Very balanced, with high Client Experience (4.06) and Cost (3.67). They are competitive alternatives when local support matters.
• Agents: Offer strong Ease of Use (4.10, the highest across all regions for Agents). Recommendation Rate (~81%) shows trust in personal connections.
• Agents (single/local): Score lower across the board (Coverage 3.64, Cost 3.31), but Recommendation Rate is a surprisingly strong 83%—indicating loyalty despite weaker features.

Trend: In the Midwest, local trust matters. Even lower-scoring Agents retain strong recommendations, while Insurers deliver the best overall package.

South

• Insurers: Strongest performance in the South, with balanced metrics across Coverage (4.26), Client Experience (4.26), and Recommendation (~81%).
• Brokers: Solid client service (4.04) with good Recommendation (81%). Ease (3.46) is lower, signaling process complexity.
• Agents: Consistently good (Coverage 3.91, Ease 3.95), with Recommendation ~80%. They’re easier to work with than Brokers.
• Agents (local): Weakest of the group—Coverage (3.41) and Ease (3.14) lag well behind, but Recommendation Rate (~82.5%) again shows loyalty despite performance gaps.

Trend: The South has the widest gap between perception and performance. Local agents underperform on metrics but keep strong homeowner loyalty. Insurers dominate on balanced performance.

West

• Agents (local): Exceptionally strong in the West—best across all regions with Coverage (4.47), Client Experience (4.40), Ease (4.40), and the highest Recommendation Rate (86.8%). This is a standout trend.
• Insurers: Solid performance (Coverage 4.22, Client Experience 4.39, Recommend 82.8%), second to Agents.
• Brokers: Strong on Client Experience (4.28) and competitive across metrics, but not as dominant as Agents.
• Agents (general): Reliable, balanced (Coverage 3.88, Ease 3.89, Recommendation 81%).

Trend: The West is the only region where local agents outperform all other types. Personalized service and ease appear to be highly valued.

Key Takeaways for Homeowners

• Insurers dominate overall, especially in the Northeast, Midwest, and South, where they combine strong coverage with high satisfaction.
• Brokers are consistent in client experience but often lose on cost, especially in the Northeast.
• Local agents show loyalty resilience—despite weak performance in the South and Midwest, recommendation rates remain high.
• West is the outlier—local agents outperform everyone, showing the strongest scores across all dimensions.

Regional Home Insurance: Providers Perspective

Performance across regions shows where Agents, Brokers, and Insurers excel, and where they lag. These differences show companies how their type is perceived in each market, giving some insights into competitive positioning and opportunities to improve.

Regional Competitive Trends

Northeast

Insurers: Competitive leaders. Highest Coverage (4.41) and Client Experience (4.32) signal strong brand strength and reliability. Companies in this group are well-positioned to hold market share by emphasizing stability and broad product offerings.

Brokers: Strong service (Client Experience 4.07) but weakened by higher costs (4.09). Competitive positioning hinges on premium service, but cost-conscious homeowners may drift to Insurers or Agents.

Agents: Mid-tier, but competitive on Ease (4.00) and affordability. Opportunity lies in marketing local accessibility to counter Insurers’ dominance.

Overview: Insurers dominate; Brokers must justify premium pricing with service, while Agents compete on affordability and relationships.

Midwest

Insurers: Consistently strong; top marks in Coverage (4.29) and Client Experience (4.15). Clear competitive advantage in breadth and reliability.

Brokers: Balanced, strong service (4.06) with cost competitiveness (3.67). Positioned as a viable second choice to Insurers, particularly for homeowners seeking personalized guidance.

Agents: Score highest on Ease (4.10) across regions — an advantage for firms investing in streamlined processes. Still, overall Coverage (3.87) lags behind Insurers.

Overview: Insurers hold the strongest position, but loyalty to local agents creates space for small firms. Brokers can win with service differentiation.

South

Insurers: Maintain leadership with balanced high scores across Coverage (4.26) and Client Experience (4.26). Competitive positioning is strong, especially in states with high insurance complexity (hurricanes, floods).

Brokers: Competitive on service (4.04) but challenged on Ease (3.46). Companies must modernize processes to avoid losing to Agents or Insurers.

Agents: Competitive on Ease (3.95) and affordability — a differentiator against Brokers. Positioned to capture convenience-driven customers.

Overview: Insurers dominate, but local agents’ customer stickiness is a competitive moat. Brokers risk being squeezed unless they close the Ease gap.

West

Agents: The clear market leaders. They outperform all competitors on Coverage (4.47), Client Experience (4.40), Ease (4.40), and Recommendation (86.8%). Companies here hold the strongest competitive edge nationwide — high performance reinforced by loyalty.

Insurers: Strong contenders, especially on Client Experience (4.39) and Recommendation (82.8%). Competitive but overshadowed by the superior perception of local agents.

Brokers: Solid service (4.28) but less differentiated; positioned as reliable but not top-tier.

Overview: The West is the one region where local agents dominate the competitive landscape. Insurers remain strong but must differentiate against agents’ superior perception.

Insights for Home Insurance Providers

Insurers hold national dominance in the Northeast, Midwest, and South, but face disruption in the West from high-performing local agents.

Brokers’ competitive strength lies in client service, but they risk margin pressure unless they improve cost competitiveness (Northeast) or ease of process (South).

Agents are regionally split; weak in the South and Midwest, strong in the West. Companies must localize strategy to either reinforce loyalty or modernize operations.

Local loyalty is a hidden advantage. Even where local agents score poorly on performance, high Recommendation Rates show strong customer stickiness; a potential moat for small firms against national players.

	Type	Coverage	Client Experience	Ease of Use	Cost	Recommend %
National Average	Agents	3.92	3.88	3.96	3.69	84.1%
	Brokers	3.9	4.08	3.61	3.77	81.5%
	Insurers	4.32	4.28	3.77	3.86	81.1%
Alabama	Agents	4.11	4.12	4.09	3.82	82%
	Brokers	4.56	4.67	4.06	3.78	87.6%
	Insurers	4.93	4.90	4.27	3.90	79.4%
Alaska	Agents	4.08	4.08	4.14	3.75	82.6%
	Brokers	3.82	4.23	4.00	4.59	79.5%
	Insurers	4.12	4.31	3.94	4.09	81.4%
Arizona	Agents	3.50	3.45	3.89	3.50	82.8%
	Brokers	4.25	5.00	4.000	4.00	88.8%
	Insurers	3.60	3.80	4.00	3.60	83%
Arkansas	Agents	3.83	3.97	3.93	3.63	82.1%
	Brokers	3.50	3.46	3.25	3.46	76.2%
	Insurers	4.39	4.07	3.61	3.33	82.3%
California	Agent	4.47	4.40	4.40	3.87	86.8%
	Brokers	4.37	4.60	4.26	3.74	86.7%
	Insurers	na	na	na	na	na
Colorado	Agents	3.80	3.70	3.86	3.42	77.3%
	Brokers	3.40	3.60	3.80	3.40	71.8%
	Insurers	4.50	5.00	4.50	4.00	86.4%
Connecticut	Agents	4.04	4.00	3.96	3.65	69.9%
	Brokers	4.15	4.50	4.04	3.96	84.6%
	Insurers	4.17	4.33	3.85	3.59	66.4%
Delaware	Agents	4.11	4.14	4.06	3.92	80.6%
	Brokers	3.77	4.07	3.90	3.97	78.7%
	Insurers	4.50	4.75	4.00	3.50	83.5%
Florida	Agent	3.41	3.35	3.14	3.27	82.5%
	Brokers	3.56	3.51	3.47	3.35	84%
	Insurers	na	na	na	na	na
Hawaii	Agents	4.12	4.50	4.06	4.00	86.5%
	Brokers	3.79	3.96	3.71	3.79	76.4%
	Insurers	4.18	4.08	4.02	4.00	83%
Idaho	Agents	4.03	4.20	3.82	3.91	81.7%
	Brokers	4.43	4.43	4.14	3.71	85.1%
	Insurers	4.50	4.50	4.00	4.00	90%
Illinois	Agents	4.03	4.15	4.03	4.02	82.1%
	Brokers	4.32	4.51	4.14	4.16	85.8%
	Insurers	4.28	4.36	4.10	4.06	84.4%
Indiana	Agents	3.84	4.06	4.32	3.68	78.7%
	Brokers	3.50	3.67	3.42	3.42	74.4%
	Insurers	4.73	4.09	3.64	4.41	82.3%
Iowa	Agents	3.79	3.77	3.89	3.55	76.1%
	Brokers	4.30	4.47	3.97	3.67	85.3%
	Insurers	4.02	4.09	3.75	3.98	80.9%
Kansas	Agents	3.96	4.10	4.15	3.65	82.9%
	Brokers	3.67	3.83	3.50	3.79	75%
	Insurers	4.50	4.32	3.97	4.06	86.7%
Kentucky	Agents	3.78	3.67	3.78	3.89	82.9%
	Brokers	3.50	4.00	3.00	4.67	82.2%
	Insurers	4.55	4.36	3.36	4.09	85.4%
Louisiana	Agents	3.94	3.81	4.25	3.34	77.1%
	Brokers	4.10	4.30	3.30	3.70	78.3%
	Insurers	3.44	3.50	3.50	4.28	73.1%
Maine	Agents	4.06	3.85	3.94	3.94	82.2%
	Brokers	3.38	3.38	3.25	4.38	71.8%
	Insurers	4.15	3.88	3.47	4.03	77.6%
Maryland	Agents	3.67	3.76	4.29	3.52	79%
	Brokers	3.62	4.00	3.46	3.46	78.2%
	Insurers	3.80	3.70	3.60	3.2	76.9%
Massachusetts	Agents	3.44	3.39	3.83	3.22	77.8%
	Brokers	3.77	4.05	3.18	3.59	82.0%
	Insurers	4.40	4.29	3.40	3.77	85.3%
Michigan	Agent	3.64	3.67	3.61	3.31	83.4%
	Brokers	3.84	3.82	3.64	3.43	83.9%
	Insurers	na	na	na	na	na
Minnesota	Agents	3.82	3.49	4.44	4.44	82.3%
	Brokers	4.00	4.00	3.00	3.00	76.0%
	Insurers	4.57	4.40	3.73	3.73	86.4%
Mississippi	Agents	4.15	4.12	3.73	4.04	81.1%
	Brokers	4.25	4.75	4.33	4.33	87.7%
	Insurers	4.64	4.59	3.80	3.89	84.0%
Missouri	Agents	3.77	3.50	3.56	3.27	82.0%
	Brokers	3.69	3.77	2.62	3.69	77.4%
	Insurers	4.11	3.56	3.22	3.56	75.3%
Montana	Agents	3.68	3.92	3.74	3.16	75.9%
	Brokers	4.50	4.67	4.17	4.00	84.3%
	Insurers	4.50	4.41	3.73	3.73	80.4%
Nebraska	Agents	3.75	4.06	4.06	3.63	77.6%
	Brokers	4.30	4.70	4.20	4.00	87.2%
	Insurers	4.35	4.42	3.92	3.92	81.3%
Nevada	Agents	4.40	4.25	4.09	3.70	83.2%
	Brokers	4.00	4.00	3.50	4.00	77%
	Insurers	4.00	3.92	4.04	4.00	77.8%
New Hampshire	Agents	4.21	3.82	3.68	3.79	70.3%
	Brokers	4.50	4.10	4.10	4.00	75.2%
	Insurers	4.75	4.38	4.06	4.50	81.6%
New Jersey	Agents	3.89	3.67	4.33	4.33	85.2%
	Brokers	3.82	4.27	3.55	3.91	87.00%
	Insurers	4.90	4.90	4.10	4.00	89.8%
New Mexico	Agents	4.11	4.01	3.99	4.04	80.6%
	Brokers	4.07	4.22	3.72	4.00	81.9%
	Insurers	4.60	4.50	3.90	3.4	86.2%
New York	Agents	4.31	4.31	3.71	3.37	66.6%
	Brokers	4.18	3.94	3.88	4.12	69.2%
	Insurers	4.00	3.59	3.75	4.11	58.4%
North Carolina	Agents	3.80	3.74	4.29	3.29	80.6%
	Brokers	3.24	3.72	3.00	3.96	76.1%
	Insurers	4.80	4.80	3.50	3.70	87%
North Dakota	Agents	4.10	4.05	4.14	3.79	81.6%
	Brokers	4.10	4.00	3.67	3.83	79%
	Insurers	4.50	4.50	4.00	3.5	88%
Ohio	Agents	3.83	3.74	4.35	4.00	80.7%
	Brokers	4.19	4.25	3.62	4.12	85.2%
	Insurers	4.10	4.03	3.35	3.68	80%
Oklahoma	Agents	3.75	3.80	3.75	3.30	76.4%
	Brokers	3.67	3.50	3.00	3.50	76.3%
	Insurers	4.00	3.79	3.00	3.57	75%
Oregon	Agents	3.25	3.60	3.45	3.05	80.6%
	Brokers	3.33	3.57	3.00	3.00	80%
	Insurers	4.00	4.25	4.50	4.00	85%
Pennsylvania	Agents	4.00	4.12	4.18	4.12	81.8%
	Brokers	3.83	4.50	4.00	4.33	81.8%
	Insurers	4.81	4.58	3.62	3.62	82.2%
Rhode Island	Agents	4.12	4.18	4.18	3.86	82.1%
	Brokers	4.58	4.33	3.33	3.00	78.2%
	Insurers	4.25	4.54	3.79	3.71	84.5%
South Carolina	Agents	3.61	3.68	3.5	3.58	80.7%
	Brokers	4.05	4.53	4.05	3.95	85.8%
	Insurers	4.70	4.70	3.91	3.83	88.3%
South Dakota	Agents	4.22	4.19	4.22	3.81	86.5%
	Brokers	3.89	4.00	3.89	3.61	80.1%
	Insurers	4.40	4.18	3.62	3.92	84.3%
Tennessee	Agents	3.58	3.30	3.61	3.27	77.5%
	Brokers	3.50	3.55	2.60	3.40	76.7%
	Insurers	4.35	4.53	3.41	4.24	85.6%
Texas	Agents	4.23	3.99	3.64	3.41	83.1%
	Brokers	4.24	4.24	3.71	4.00	82.7%
	Insurers	4.53	4.43	4.00	3.58	84.6%
Utah	Agents	4.16	4.09	3.88	3.78	83.4%
	Brokers	4.17	4.50	3.83	4.00	82%
	Insurers	4.29	4.29	3.54	4.11	83.1%
Vermont	Agents	3.93	4.03	4.07	3.70	80.8%
	Brokers	3.60	3.90	3.40	4.20	79.2%
	Insurers	4.50	4.50	4.00	4.20	87.9%
Virginia	Agents	3.84	3.60	4.32	3.84	76.6%
	Brokers	3.92	4.42	3.50	3.75	86.4%
	Insurers	3.74	4.26	3.70	3.74	83.3%
Washington	Agents	3.42	3.25	3.75	3.82	76.2%
	Brokers	3.75	4.00	3.08	3.83	81.5%
	Insurers	3.94	4.69	4.19	3.12	82.6%
West Virginia	Agents	4.09	4.11	3.98	3.50	81.4%
	Brokers	4.04	4.00	4.12	3.85	83.6%
	Insurers	4.78	4.50	3.69	3.06	86.4%
Wisconsin	Agents	4.04	3.70	4.11	4.04	84.6%
	Brokers	3.00	3.60	3.40	3.40	78.2%
	Insurers	3.93	4.11	3.93	4.11	85.4%
Wyoming	Agents	4.28	4.12	4.16	3.98	81.5%
	Brokers	4.50	4.83	4.33	4.00	82.3%
	Insurers	4.79	5.00	4.50	4.21	78.3%

Home Insurance Survey Methodology

National Data

Survey results reflect feedback from over 100,000 homeowners who purchased or renewed home insurance between August 2024 and December 2025, covering 5,000+ registered insurers, agents, and brokers nationwide. Responses are weighted by state homeowner distribution and insurer presence to ensure national representativeness.

At the national level, results highlight trends by insurer type (such as large insurers, regional providers, and independent agents) rather than naming individual companies.

Differences between insurer types larger than ±0.2% (approximate national margin of error at a 95% confidence level) can be considered statistically meaningful.

State Data

State-level results are based on self-reported responses from homeowners within each state, with weighting applied to reflect each state’s home insurance market. Individual insurers are named only on state and metro pages to highlight the most recommended providers locally.

Margins of error vary by state depending on sample size, typically ranging from ±1–2.5% at a 95% confidence level. Differences larger than the state-specific margin of error can be considered statistically meaningful.

Metro / City Data

The 10 largest metro areas in each state account for approximately 70% of that state’s survey responses. Metro-level results are based on self-reported responses from homeowners in each metro, providing a detailed view of insurer performance in the state’s most active housing markets.

Margins of error for metro results depend on the number of responses: larger metros may have ±1–2%, smaller metros may have ±3–5% at a 95% confidence level. Differences larger than these margins can be considered statistically meaningful.

Weighted vs Non-Weighted Results

Non-weighted results reflect the raw survey responses as submitted by homeowners. Weighted results adjust for over- or under-representation by state and insurer presence, providing a more accurate reflection of the national and state home insurance markets. Weighted results are used for all published rankings and trends.

Cost Analysis by Home Value & Deductible

The survey also collects home insurance cost data based on home value and deductible amounts. These analyses are aggregated and weighted to reflect typical homeowner profiles in each state and metro, providing insight into how coverage levels and deductibles affect premiums.

Data Access & Partnerships

Organizations interested in deeper insights can request access to anonymized, aggregated survey data for research, benchmarking, or analysis. MFP regularly partners with insurers, agents, and research organizations to improve transparency, inform homeowners, and enhance the overall insurance experience.

Learn about Research and Data opportunities