Quick answer: Of the five insurance-marketed AI voice agents we compared on 8 October 2026, all five document a handover to a human and four name agency management system integrations on their own pages. Sonant is a P&C agency receptionist that also runs outbound renewal touches; Liberate and Strada lead with claims and servicing; Retell and Bland publish per-minute prices and cover inbound service as well as outbound calls. Whichever you pick, hand over to a licensed producer before any licensed activity; in Australia, an AI call offering a retail policy generally needs consent from the previous six weeks (s992A).
General information as at 8 October 2026, not legal advice. Licensing and telemarketing rules differ by state and country; confirm your design with counsel.
Search for the best AI voice agents for insurance and you get horizontal voice-agent platforms with insurance pages and insurance-native products built around an agency management system (AMS). What decides it is less voice quality than where the agent stops before a licence is needed, whose consent covers each call, whether the call lands in your AMS, and whether the product was built for the calls you actually take.
What makes an AI voice agent the best fit for an insurance agency?
Five criteria, in the order they rule products out.
1. The licence line. Insurance is sold by licensed people. Florida’s statute is a useful worked example because it spells the activities out: under section 626.112(1)(b) of the Florida Statutes, soliciting insurance needs a licence, and solicitation means attempting to persuade someone to buy by any of six listed means, from describing coverage and premiums to completing applications (the table below maps the five that arise on an agency call; the sixth is negotiating viatical settlements). Exceptions: subsection (6), for a life or health insurer’s salaried officer accompanied by a licensed, appointed agent, and applicable department rules. The statute licenses persons and firms and says nothing about software, so the conservative design is an agent that stays out of all six activities and hands over.
2. Consent per call, not per list. In the US, an AI voice is an “artificial” voice under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), so telemarketing with one generally needs prior express written consent that authorises the seller. In Australia, an AI call offering a retail policy can be hawking under section 992A of the Corporations Act 2001 unless the consent meets s992A(5), including a six-week window. Both put the burden on you, not the vendor or lead seller.
3. AMS write-back. The agency’s record of truth is its AMS (Applied Epic, AMS360, EZLynx, HawkSoft, Vertafore). Count the integrations a vendor names on its own site, then ask to see one working.
4. Inbound or outbound. Inbound is service and quote requests; outbound is renewals, quote follow-up and purchased or web leads. The products below split along this line, and the consent rules bite hardest on the outbound side.
5. Price model and time to live. Per-minute rate cards or demo-led quotes; the worked example below shows why call caps and transfer minutes can matter more than the headline rate.
Best AI voice agents for insurance agencies, compared
Inclusion rule, applied identically to every row: (i) the vendor’s own site describes an AI voice agent that holds a live two-way phone conversation; (ii) a page on that site markets it to insurance by name; and (iii) we could read a product page and an integrations source on the vendor’s own site, and checked that site for a pricing page or statement, on 8 October 2026. These are the five we compared, not a sweep of the category; every cell comes from the vendor’s own site.
| Option | Built for (vendor’s own framing) | Calls it documents | Insurance systems it names | Handover it documents | Price model (as at 8 Oct 2026) | Stated time to live |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sonant | “The AI Receptionist For Insurance” – P&C agencies, brokers, distributors | Inbound answering and line-of-business qualification; outbound renewal touches on a 90/60/30 schedule and quote follow-ups | AMS360, Applied Epic, EZLynx, HawkSoft, Momentum AMP, QQCatalyst; Applied Epic Certified Vendor Integration | Warm transfer after a calendar and out-of-office check, with a spoken brief before connect | Quoted on call volume; no single sticker price | “Most agencies go live in under 30 days” |
| Liberate | “Insurance-native AI, built by insurance people”, for P&C carriers and agencies | Claims (FNOL, claim status), service (billing, policy servicing), sales (lead qualification, rate, bind) over voice, SMS, email and digital; outbound calls to policyholders during catastrophe surges | 23 listed, including Applied, EZLynx, Vertafore, TurboRater, Guidewire, Duck Creek and Salesforce | “Hand off with full context when producer involvement is needed” | No rate card on its site (/pricing returns 404; no pricing page in its sitemap); demo-led | “Go live in 6 to 8 weeks” |
| Strada | “AI that runs insurance operations” for carriers, TPAs and MGAs; its FAQ adds brokers | FNOL, policy servicing, quote intake and claims status; outbound renewal outreach and quote follow-up; across voice, email, chat and SMS | Guidewire, Duck Creek, Applied Epic, Vertafore, Salesforce; “200+ systems connected, by API or browser agent” | “Live handover with the full transcript”; escalation thresholds your team defines | Its /pricing page is a book-a-demo form | A “4 weeks” deployment plan on its home page, live in week 4 |
| Retell AI | General voice-agent platform with an insurance industry page and seven insurance use-case pages, including an insurance virtual receptionist | Inbound quote calls, after-hours FNOL, coverage and eligibility questions; outbound renewal, premium-payment and lead follow-up calls; booking with a licensed producer | Insurance use-case pages: “reads and writes to” Applied Epic, AMS360, EZLynx, HubSpot and Salesforce; its integrations directory (61 pages) has no AMS page | Warm transfer to a licensed agent with the transcript: “Coverage advice and binding decisions need a licensed producer, not an AI” | Pay as you go, US$0.07–$0.31/min headline; component LLM rates run from US$0.0016 to US$0.64/min; US Twilio telephony US$0.015/min | “Go live in minutes” self-serve; teams without engineers go live with its implementation team “without writing code” |
| Bland | Enterprise voice AI with an insurance hub: “Self-hosted voice AI for FNOL intake, policy service, and scheduling” for carriers, brokers and MGAs | FNOL and claims intake, policy service, scheduling and renewal reminders, tier-1 support, premium payments; outbound sales and lead qualification | Salesforce and HubSpot by name; “native connectors” to your CRM and “policy admin system”; no agency management system named as a Bland integration | Warm transfer with lead score, summary and transcript; routes to a rep when a call goes off-script | Start US$0.14/min, no platform fee, 100 calls a day; Build US$0.12/min plus US$299/month, 2,000 calls a day; Enterprise custom; telephony billed separately | “Bland deployments go live in 30 days or less”; its pricing page says most teams deploy a first agent within a day on the self-serve plans |
Read across the rows: four of the five name an insurance agency management system on their own pages – Sonant, Liberate and Strada in their integration lists, Retell on its insurance use-case pages (its integrations directory has no AMS page) – while Bland names Salesforce and HubSpot and promises connectors to your policy admin system. All five document both inbound and outbound insurance calls and a handover to a human. Retell and Bland publish per-minute prices; Sonant quotes on call volume, Liberate has no pricing page, and Strada’s pricing page is a book-a-demo form.
Who each option is wrong for
Sonant is wrong for a life or health telesales floor dialling purchased leads at volume. It describes itself as an AI receptionist built for P&C agencies (a blog post on life agencies says that on a life book “its role is intentionally narrow”); its outbound work is renewal touches on a 90/60/30 schedule and quote follow-up, and its own post on outbound call-centre KPIs positions it as covering the inbound side so that human agents can spend their outbound hours dialling. Its renewals post also places it at the renewal touchpoints that do not need a licence. It quotes on call volume, so cost needs a demo.
Liberate is wrong for an agency that needs something running this month. Its stated go-live is 6 to 8 weeks. Its bind page says the agent “completes eligible next steps” and brings in a producer when required. Which steps are eligible is your licence-line decision, not a default.
Strada is wrong for a retail agency shopping for a sales caller. Its home page leads with claims, servicing and endorsement work for carriers, TPAs and MGAs, and its platform page lists outbound renewal outreach and quote follow-up (a 2025 Strada blog post on sales automation also lists 24/7 lead follow-up). A brokerage with heavy servicing volume should look; a two-producer agency wanting more quotes booked probably should not.
Retell AI is wrong for an agency that wants a fixed monthly price. Its pay-as-you-go plan bills per minute (Enterprise is custom-priced) and the model you choose sets most of the cost: US$375 to US$2,175 for the same 3,000 minutes in our worked example below. Its insurance use-case pages say it reads and writes to Applied Epic, AMS360 and EZLynx and that teams without engineers go live through its implementation team, but its integrations directory has no AMS page, so ask to see the write-back working in your own AMS before you sign.
Bland is wrong for an agency that needs a named AMS connector confirmed up front. Its insurance hub promises native connectors to “your CRM and policy admin system” and names Salesforce and HubSpot, but none of its insurance pages, its integrations directory or its docs index names an agency management system as a Bland integration (checked 8 October 2026). On its 30-day path Bland builds the first agent end to end, including those integrations; the self-serve Start plan is faster but capped at 100 calls a day.
The licence line: what the agent may do before a licensed person takes over
The decision rule we would apply to any product above: an insurance voice agent should do everything up to the first moment a licensed person would be needed, and nothing after it. Call it the licence-line rule. The table maps common call tasks against Florida’s six solicitation activities and Australia’s financial product advice definition in section 766B of the Corporations Act.
| Call task | Florida s626.112(1)(b) | Australia (Corporations Act) | Agent default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Answer, identify the caller, send an ID card, billing balance or payment link for an existing policy | Not among the six listed solicitation activities | Contact about a product already held is not hawking if no new product is offered (RG 38.27) | Agent handles |
| Ask fact-finding questions: line of business, current carrier, renewal date, vehicles, address | Not among the six listed activities | Advice needs a recommendation or opinion (s766B(1)); target-market questions alone are not personal advice (s766B(3A)) | Agent handles |
| Book an appointment with a licensed producer | Not among the six listed activities | Booking a meeting is not itself an offer, but if the call was unsolicited, an offer the producer later makes at that meeting can still be made ‘because of’ the call and be hawking unless the causal nexus is broken (RG 38.50–38.56) | Agent handles, with consent checked first on outbound |
| Describe benefits, terms, premiums or rates of a policy | Activity 1 – licence required when done to persuade someone to buy | Factual information is not advice unless it is a recommendation or opinion; a cost or estimate given in response to the caller’s request, worked out from a valuation the provider suggests, is not, of itself, a recommendation (s766B(6)) | Hand over in the US; in Australia, factual only, and only where the contact is not unsolicited |
| Send an invitation to contract (for example a bindable quote link) | Activity 2 – licence required | An offer or invitation to apply; on an unsolicited call this is hawking unless s992A(5) consent exists | Hand over, or only with counsel’s sign-off on the link type |
| Recommend, compare products, interpret coverage | Activities 3 and 5 – licence required | Financial product advice; personal advice if it considers the person’s objectives, financial situation or needs (s766B(3)) | Hand over |
| Complete the application or order | Activity 4 – licence required | An offer, request or invitation to apply, regulated by s992A on an unsolicited contact | Hand over |
Three cautions. First, “not among the six” is not the same as “needs no licence”: section 626.112(1)(a) separately reserves acting as an insurance agent or customer representative to licensed, appointed persons. Second, Florida is one state; check the rule in every state you write in. Third, several products we compared text links mid-call. Distributing an invitation to contract is a listed Florida activity, and ASIC says an offer emailed during or directly after an unsolicited sales call would likely be “because of” that call (RG 38.51), so decide with counsel which links the agent may send.
The surrounding controls are the nine components in our compliance architecture for AI sales agents in regulated industries; this page adds only the insurance-specific licence line and consent conditions.
Want an outbound agent that follows up consented leads across phone, SMS, email and WhatsApp? Zian is in partnership-application beta for teams who want to evaluate it against their own lead flow.
Can an AI voice agent call my insurance leads in the US?
Yes, with the right consent. In its September 2024 proposed rule on AI-generated calls, the Federal Communications Commission recited that it had “recently confirmed” that the TCPA’s “artificial or prerecorded voice” restrictions encompass current AI technologies that resemble human voices. Under 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(2), a telemarketing call using an artificial or prerecorded voice to a mobile number needs the called party’s prior express written consent; the only other exceptions in that paragraph are for tax-exempt nonprofits and HIPAA “health care” messages. Paragraph (a)(3) applies the same written-consent requirement to residential lines for telemarketing, with separate exemptions for emergency, non-commercial, non-telemarketing, nonprofit and health-care calls.
Prior express written consent, defined in 64.1200(f)(9) (eCFR text at 1 October 2026), is a signed written agreement (electronic signatures count) that clearly authorises the seller to deliver telemarketing calls using an automatic dialling system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, names the telephone number, and discloses that signing authorises those calls and is not a condition of purchase. Its text sets no expiry period. Under 64.1200(a)(10) a consumer may revoke by any reasonable method, honoured within a reasonable time not exceeding ten business days. A spoken “stop calling me” has to reach your suppression list.
The FCC’s one-to-one consent requirement does not apply. On 24 January 2025, in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd v. FCC, No. 24-10277, the Eleventh Circuit granted the petition, vacated Part III.D of the FCC’s 2023 order (consent to one seller at a time, for calls “logically and topically associated” with the interaction) and remanded. One interaction can now validly consent to several named sellers, but the agreement must still authorise the seller, so consent to unnamed “partners” fails; see purchased lead lists, AI voice agents and TCPA consent.
Is an AI sales call hawking in Australia?
It can be. Section 992A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 prohibits offering a financial product for issue or sale, or requesting or inviting a consumer to ask or apply for, or to buy, one, where the consumer is a retail client and the offer, request or invitation is made in the course of, or because of, an unsolicited contact. The current section was substituted by the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Act 2020 with effect from 5 October 2021, and amended again in 2022. A breach is a strict-liability offence (s992A(9)); ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 38 puts the maximum at 60 penalty units, six months’ imprisonment or both for an individual and 600 penalty units for a body corporate. Section 992AA adds a consumer right of return and refund.
Three limbs decide whether an AI call is caught. Retail client: for general insurance, s761G(5) requires an individual or small business buying one of seven listed kinds (motor vehicle, home building, home contents, sickness and accident, consumer credit, travel, personal and domestic property) or a prescribed kind; life products fall under the general test in s761G(7). Unsolicited contact: s992A(4) covers a telephone call, a face-to-face meeting or any other real-time interaction in the nature of a discussion or conversation, where the consumer did not consent or the consent fails the conditions in s992A(5). Exceptions: s992A(2) excludes offers made while giving advice under the best-interests duty, add-on insurance offered in connection with a product or service the consumer has indicated an intention to acquire from the offeror or a person it has an add-on arrangement with (subject to s992A(3)), and offers of a kind prescribed by regulation. ASIC also says contact with an existing client about a product already held is not caught when no new product is offered (RG 38.27), and a renewal that involves offering a new, substantially similar product is permitted where the client held the product being renewed within the 30 days before the offer (RG 38.28, citing reg 7.8.21A(j)).
ASIC has addressed AI directly. RG 38.36 says the prohibition is technology neutral and extends to real-time interactions through “media that use artificial intelligence such as chat-bots”; RG 38.37 makes the person commissioning the chat-bot, or under whose licence it operates, responsible for its offers. RG 38.77 covers bought leads: where consent comes through a third-party lead generator, the offeror must establish that it was positive, voluntary, clear and reasonably understood, and can breach the prohibition even without intending to rely on bad consent. RG 38 is guidance, not law. Telemarketing calls in Australia also engage the Do Not Call Register rules, covered in whether AI cold calling is legal in Australia.
What your consent records must show before an AI agent dials
The two regimes side by side, as the fields an agent’s consent ledger needs. Australia’s column follows paragraphs a to h of s992A(5) and s992A(6); ASIC’s RG 38.124 gives examples of records offerors may need to keep, including consent date, contact methods allowed, products in scope and withdrawals.
| Ledger field | Australia: s992A(5)–(6) | US: 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9) and (a)(10) |
|---|---|---|
| Who the consent covers | Consent to this person contacting for that offer, or the offer reasonably within the consent’s scope (paras a and b) | Must clearly authorise the seller |
| When it was given | Before the contact starts (para c) | “Prior” written agreement |
| How it was given | A positive and voluntary act; clear, so a reasonable person would understand (paras d and e) | Signed written agreement; electronic signature recognised by law counts; disclosure that signing is not a condition of purchase |
| Channel | If the consent names a form of contact, the contact must be in that form (para f) | Names the telephone number; covers dialler or artificial-voice calls |
| Age of consent | Within 6 weeks before the contact, or up to 12 weeks if the consumer agrees and a medical examination reasonably requires it (para g) | No expiry period in the definition’s text |
| Withdrawal | Not withdrawn before contact (para h); may be varied or withdrawn at any time, in any form (subsection 6) | Any reasonable method; honoured within 10 business days ((a)(10)) |
A lead who consented seven weeks ago is, in Australia, generally a lead you can no longer offer a policy to on a call (the 12-week medical-examination extension aside), however many follow-up attempts your platform schedules. Build the window into the ledger itself: store the consent date, and have the agent check it before the dial, not after the call.
A worked cost example on published rate cards
Of the five, Retell and Bland publish per-minute prices, so this is no guide to the three without a published rate card. Assume 1,000 calls a month averaging three minutes: 3,000 talk minutes.
| Configuration (published rate, 8 Oct 2026) | Arithmetic | Monthly cost before tax |
|---|---|---|
| Bland Start: US$0.14/min, no platform fee | 3,000 × 0.14 | US$420 plus telephony and any transfer minutes |
| Bland Build: US$0.12/min plus US$299/month | 3,000 × 0.12 + 299 | US$659 plus telephony and any transfer minutes |
| Retell, its own calculator example: US$0.11/min (LLM 0.04 + voice infrastructure 0.055 + TTS 0.015), US Twilio telephony 0.015 | 3,000 × (0.11 + 0.015) | US$375 |
| Retell with its most expensive listed LLM tier and the cheapest listed voice: 0.055 + 0.64 + 0.015, plus telephony 0.015 | 3,000 × 0.725 | US$2,175 |
Two insurance-specific lines move this more than the headline rate. Bland’s Start plan stops at 100 calls a day, so a renewal campaign or a claims surge pushes you to Build on volume long before price does: Build only becomes cheaper in total above 14,950 talk minutes a month (299 ÷ 0.02). And the licence line has a cost: every warm transfer to a licensed producer keeps the line open, which Bland bills at US$0.05 a minute on Start and US$0.04 on Build unless you bring your own telephony, in which case its pricing page says there is no transfer fee. On Retell, the model you choose sets most of the bill, which is why one platform spans US$375 to US$2,175 here.
Where Zian fits, and where it does not
Disclosure: Zian AI is our platform. It does not meet this page’s inclusion rule, because we publish no insurance-specific agent and no AMS integration, so it is not in the comparison. Zian runs autonomous outbound sales agents across phone, SMS, email and WhatsApp in 30+ languages, integrates with HubSpot, Salesforce, HighLevel and Zapier, and supports private model deployment on your own infrastructure; SmartReach AI™ sets channel, timing and follow-up pacing.
For an agency the honest fit is narrow: outbound follow-up and appointment setting on consented leads, worked from a CRM, with a licensed producer taking the booking. Zian’s published figures are 28x more contact attempts and a 926% increase in follow-ups. In insurance those numbers are only an asset inside the consent ledger above: in Australia, an attempt that offers a policy generally needs consent given within the previous six weeks. How the booking side works is in AI appointment setting. If your volume is inbound service on Applied Epic or EZLynx, the AMS-integrated products in the table fit better.
Frequently asked questions
What is the best AI voice agent for an insurance agency?
It depends on which calls you want automated. Of the five we compared on 8 October 2026, Sonant is a receptionist for P&C agencies that also runs outbound renewal touches and names six agency management systems; Liberate and Strada lead with claims and servicing automation; Retell is a general platform whose insurance pages claim read and write access to Applied Epic, AMS360 and EZLynx; Bland targets carriers, brokers and MGAs with FNOL, policy service and outbound qualification. All five document a handover to a human.
Can an AI voice agent sell insurance or give advice?
Not on its own. Florida’s statute, for example, lists six solicitation activities that need a licence, including describing coverage terms or premiums, distributing an invitation to contract, recommending, completing applications, and comparing or interpreting coverage (Florida Statutes section 626.112(1)(b)). The safe design has the agent fact-find and book, then hand over. In Australia, a recommendation that considers the caller’s objectives, financial situation or needs is personal advice under section 766B(3) of the Corporations Act.
Is the FCC one-to-one consent rule still in force for insurance leads?
No. On 24 January 2025 the Eleventh Circuit vacated Part III.D of the FCC’s 2023 order in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd v. FCC, No. 24-10277. Prior express written consent is still required for telemarketing calls that use an AI voice, and the written agreement must still authorise the seller, so consent to unnamed “partners” does not cover your agency.
Does Australia’s anti-hawking rule apply to AI calls?
Yes. ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 38 says the hawking prohibition is technology neutral and reaches real-time interactions through media that use artificial intelligence, and that the person commissioning the AI tool, or under whose licence it operates, is responsible for its offers.
How long does consent last for an insurance sales call in Australia?
Generally six weeks. Section 992A(5) of the Corporations Act requires the consent to have been given within 6 weeks before the contact, or within a longer period of up to 12 weeks that the consumer agrees to where a medical examination reasonably requires it. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, in any form.
How much does an AI voice agent for insurance cost?
As at 8 October 2026, Bland publishes US$0.14 a minute with no platform fee, or US$0.12 a minute plus US$299 a month, telephony extra; Retell publishes a headline US$0.07 to US$0.31 a minute, though its most expensive model tier goes above that. The other three publish no rate card: Sonant quotes on call volume, Liberate has no pricing page, and Strada’s pricing page is a book-a-demo form. For 3,000 talk minutes a month our worked example runs from US$375 to US$2,175, with Bland’s plans at US$420 and US$659 before telephony.
Where every figure on this page comes from
| Figure | Who published it | Link | Date read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Six solicitation activities requiring a licence; subsection (6) exception; s626.112(1)(a) | Florida Legislature (Florida Statutes s626.112) | leg.state.fl.us | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Section 992A text: retail client, unsolicited contact, exceptions, 6-week / 12-week consent window, strict liability; s761G(5) product list; s766B advice definitions | Australian Government, Federal Register of Legislation (Corporations Act 2001, compilation 149) | legislation.gov.au | 8 Oct 2026 |
| 5 October 2021 commencement of the current s992A; 2022 amendment | Australian Government, Federal Register of Legislation (Corporations Act 2001 endnotes and Schedule 3) | legislation.gov.au | 8 Oct 2026 |
| 60 and 600 penalty units; 30-day renewal window (RG 38.28); RG 38.27, 38.36, 38.37, 38.77, 38.124 | Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Regulatory Guide 38, September 2021) | download.asic.gov.au | 8 Oct 2026 |
| 24 January 2025; No. 24-10277; Part III.D vacated | US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | media.ca11.uscourts.gov | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Prior express written consent elements; 10 business days to honour revocation; eCFR text at 1 October 2026 | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (47 CFR 64.1200) | ecfr.gov | 8 Oct 2026 |
| AI voices within the TCPA’s “artificial or prerecorded voice” (recital, September 2024) | Federal Communications Commission, via the Federal Register (FR Doc 2024-19028) | federalregister.gov | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Sonant: 90/60/30 outbound renewal touches | Sonant | sonant.ai/blog/automate-insurance-renewals | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Sonant: six AMS integrations; “under 30 days”; quoted on call volume; outbound quote follow-ups | Sonant (Bluberry AI) | sonant.ai/integrations; also sonant.ai/solutions/ai-voice-agents, /solutions/lead-qualification, /blog/ai-receptionist-pricing-insurance | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Liberate: 23 listed integrations; “6 to 8 weeks” (also on liberate.ai/platform); outbound catastrophe-surge calls (liberate.ai/channels/voice) | Liberate | liberate.ai/integrations; also liberate.ai home, /sales/bind | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Strada: “200+ systems connected”; “4 weeks” deployment plan; outbound renewal outreach (getstrada.com/platform) | Strada | getstrada.com | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Retell: US$0.07–$0.31/min; US$0.11/min example; LLM US$0.0016–$0.64/min; US$0.015/min telephony; 20 concurrent calls | Retell AI | retellai.com/pricing | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Retell: Applied Epic, AMS360 and EZLynx read and write claim; seven insurance use-case pages; no-code implementation route | Retell AI | retellai.com/use-cases/insurance-virtual-receptionist; also /use-cases/ai-voice-agent-for-insurance | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Retell: 61 integration pages (our count of its sitemap) | Retell AI (sitemap), counted by Zian | retellai.com/sitemap.xml | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Bland: US$0.14/min; US$0.12/min plus US$299/month; 100 and 2,000 calls a day; 10 concurrent; transfer US$0.05 and US$0.04/min | Bland AI | bland.ai/pricing | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Bland: “30 days or less”; carriers, brokers and MGAs; Salesforce, HubSpot and policy admin connectors | Bland AI (insurance hub) | bland.ai/industries/insurance | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Bland: first agent within a day on self-serve plans; no transfer fees with your own telephony; 19 integration pages (our count of its sitemap) | Bland AI (pricing page and sitemap), counted by Zian | bland.ai/pricing | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Worked cost example: 3,000 minutes; US$375, US$420, US$659, US$2,175; 14,950-minute crossover | Zian calculation from the Retell and Bland rows above | bland.ai/pricing and retellai.com/pricing | 8 Oct 2026 |
| 28x more contact attempts; 926% increase in follow-ups | Zian AI (first-party, published on its home page) | zian.ai | 8 Oct 2026 |
Evaluating an outbound AI sales agent for consented leads? Zian is in partnership-application beta for teams that want to test autonomous follow-up across phone, SMS, email and WhatsApp on their own lead flow.