Data report · Updated 1 November 2026

The Apex PI Premium Index 2026: what UK professionals actually pay for professional indemnity insurance

The Apex PI Premium Index is a data report from Apex Insurance Brokers’ own professional indemnity placements — 1,157 policies after outlier trimming, data extracted 1 November 2026 — giving the middle-half premium, as a percentage of fees and in pounds at a £1m limit, for the 7 professions where the sample is large enough to publish in full, with all-sizes rates for quantity surveyors and IT consultants.

Part of: What professional indemnity insurance costs

In short

The Apex PI Premium Index 2026 reports what UK professional firms actually paid for professional indemnity insurance, from 1,157 Apex placements (data extracted 1 November 2026). Across all sizes the middle half of accountants paid 0.35%–0.57% of annual fees (n=143), management consultants 0.37%–0.92% (n=29), architects 0.83%–2.14% (n=647), chartered surveyors 0.92%–2.10% (n=95), insurance brokers 0.65%–2.94% (n=38), solicitors 1.19%–2.88% (n=48) and civil and structural engineers 1.37%–3.88% (n=30), all on a £1m-equivalent basis. An architect billing about £150,000 typically paid £1,230–£1,920 a year for £1m of cover (n=189); an accountancy practice billing £500,000 paid £1,540–£2,390 (n=54), roughly half what an architecture practice of the same size paid. Figures are interquartile ranges from an independent broker’s placements across more than 30 insurer markets, not one insurer’s rate card, and the Index is free to cite with attribution.

The headline findings

Each statement below is a middle-half (interquartile) range from Apex placements, converted to a £1m limit, with the number of placements behind it. Ratios are ratios of the rounded figures. Items carry the caveats stated with them.

In Apex’s recent placements, an architect billing around £150,000 a year typically paid between £1,230 and £1,920 a year for £1m of professional indemnity cover. (n=189)
An architect with around £50,000 of annual fees typically paid £730 to £1,250 a year for £1m of PI cover in Apex’s recent placements. (n=184)
Across 647 architect placements, professional indemnity premiums typically ran between 0.83% and 2.14% of annual fees. (n=647)
The smallest architecture practices pay proportionally the most: firms billing under £25,000 typically paid 3.33% to 6.66% of fees for PI, roughly six times the 0.56% to 1.15% paid by practices billing £250,000 to £1m. (n=101 and n=168)
An accountancy practice with £500,000 of fees typically paid £1,540 to £2,390 a year for £1m of PI cover — an architecture practice of the same size paid roughly twice as much (1.81 to 2.40 times), at £2,790 to £5,740. (n=54 and n=168)
Across 143 accountant placements, PI premiums typically cost between 0.35% and 0.57% of annual fees — the lowest rate of the 7 professions we publish in full. (n=143)
A chartered surveyor with around £50,000 of fees typically paid £590 to £1,180 a year for £1m of PI cover; at £150,000 of fees the typical range was £1,290 to £2,550. (n=52 and n=22)
An accountancy practice billing £1m typically paid £3,170 to £5,400 a year for £1m of PI cover. (n=20)
Civil and structural engineers pay the highest PI rates of the professions we publish in full: a firm with £50,000 of fees typically paid £1,760 to £3,270 for £1m of cover, about two and a half times the equivalent architect figure. (n=9 — indicative only)
A law firm billing around £150,000 typically paid the equivalent of £2,010 to £3,170 a year for £1m of PI cover, which scales to roughly £2,420 to £3,800 at the £2m limit solicitors are required to carry. (n=16 — solicitors cannot buy £1m; the £1m figure is a normalisation of £2m and £3m policies, and the sample is small)
A management consultancy billing around £150,000 typically paid £560 to £1,380 a year for £1m of PI cover; across all sizes management consultants paid 0.37%–0.92% of fees, the second-lowest rate of the professions we publish in full. (n=11 and n=29)
An insurance broker billing around £150,000 typically paid the equivalent of £1,140 to £2,550 a year for £1m of PI cover; the smallest brokerages, billing £25,000 to £100,000, paid 3.21%–4.68% of fees. (n=10 and n=10 — FCA rules require brokers to carry more than £1m, so the £1m figure is a normalisation)
Quantity surveyors paid 0.60%–1.25% of fees across all sizes, and practices billing £250,000 to £1m paid 0.53%–0.83%. (n=22 and n=14)
IT consultants paid 0.26%–0.35% of fees across all sizes, a lower rate than any other profession in our data. (n=13 — indicative only: below our usual twenty-placement threshold)

PI premium as a percentage of fees, by profession

Profession	Premium as % of annual fees middle half, all firm sizes, £1m-equivalent	Placements (n)	Note
Architect	0.83%–2.14%	647
Accountant	0.35%–0.57%	143
Chartered surveyor	0.92%–2.10%	95
Solicitor	1.19%–2.88%	48	£1m-equivalent; firms buy £2m or £3m, multiply by 1.2 for £2m
Civil or structural engineer	1.37%–3.88%	30	small sample; cells of 6–11
Insurance broker	0.65%–2.94%	38	£1m-equivalent; FCA rules set a higher minimum
Management consultant	0.37%–0.92%	29
Quantity surveyor	0.60%–1.25%	22	all-sizes rate only; one fee band with eight or more placements
IT consultant	0.26%–0.35%	13	indicative: thirteen placements, all-sizes rate only

New in this edition: brokers, consultants, quantity surveyors and IT

This edition adds four professions. Insurance brokers (n=38) and management consultants (n=29) now meet the full publication test: twenty or more placements and at least two fee bands with eight or more. Quantity surveyors (n=22) have enough placements for an all-sizes rate but only one fee band with eight or more, so we give rates, not pounds figures. IT consultants (n=13) are shown as an all-sizes rate below our usual twenty-placement threshold and marked indicative.

Insurance brokers

FCA rules (MIPRU 3) require insurance and mortgage intermediaries to carry a minimum limit above £1m, so these figures are on our £1m-equivalent basis for comparison; the policy a broker actually buys will cost more. Middle half by fee band:

Annual fees	Premium as % of fees middle half, £1m basis	Typical annual premium, £1m limit	n	Note
£25k–£100k	3.21%–4.68%	£1,610–£2,340 at £50k	10	The smallest brokerages pay a high rate on fees.
£100k–£250k	0.76%–1.70%	£1,140–£2,550 at £150k	10
£250k–£1m	0.67%–1.01%	£3,360–£5,050 at £500k	9 (indicative)
£1m–£3m	0.31%–0.50%	£3,080–£4,990 at £1m	6 (indicative)	A small cell.

Management consultants

Across all sizes management consultants paid 0.37%–0.92% of fees (n=29). A consultancy billing about £150,000 typically paid £560–£1,380 a year for £1m (n=11). At £25,000–£100,000 of fees the middle half paid 0.31%–0.41% of fees (n=13), which implies premiums below £300 for £1m at £50,000 of fees, so we give the rate only for that band. In our September extract that band was unusually narrow (0.38%–0.41%, n=12), so we held it back; with more placements it now reads as above.

Quantity surveyors and IT consultants

Quantity surveyors paid 0.60%–1.25% of fees across all sizes (n=22); practices billing £250,000–£1m paid 0.53%–0.83% (n=14). IT consultants paid 0.26%–0.35% (n=13), the lowest rate in our data. At fees under about £100,000 that rate implies a premium below £300 for £1m, and the range is narrow, which can happen when a few similar policies dominate a small sample. Treat it as indicative until the sample grows.

The small-firm penalty

Rate-on-fees falls steeply with size in almost every profession. The £300 minimum premium is a large part of the reason, and insurers also give larger firms economies of scale in rating. A £5,000-fee firm paying £300 shows a 6% rate; a £20,000-fee firm paying the same £300 shows 1.5%. Architects, the largest sample, show it most clearly: practices billing under £25,000 paid 3.33%–6.66% of fees (n=101), those billing £25,000–£100,000 paid 1.45%–2.49% (n=184), £100,000–£250,000 0.82%–1.28% (n=189), £250,000–£1m 0.56%–1.15% (n=168) and £1m–£3m 0.51%–0.79% (n=11). Insurance brokers fall sharply too: 3.21%–4.68% at £25,000–£100,000 against 0.76%–1.70% at £100,000–£250,000 (n=10 and 10).

Premium as a percentage of fees, middle half, by fee band and profession (£1m-equivalent basis; solicitors multiply by 1.2 for £2m):

Profession	Under £25k	£25k–£100k	£100k–£250k	£250k–£1m	£1m–£3m
Architect	3.33%–6.66% n=101	1.45%–2.49% n=184	0.82%–1.28% n=189	0.56%–1.15% n=168	0.51%–0.79% n=11
Accountant	3.24%–4.53% n=6 · indicative	0.51%–0.90% n=40	0.38%–0.55% n=28	0.31%–0.48% n=54	0.32%–0.54% n=20
Chartered surveyor	3.81%–11.91% n=9 · indicative	1.19%–2.36% n=52	0.86%–1.70% n=22	0.45%–0.73% n=11	—
Solicitor	1.43%–1.71% n=5 · indicative	2.60%–6.60% n=7 · indicative	1.34%–2.11% n=16	1.93%–4.98% n=12	—
Civil or structural engineer	—	3.53%–6.55% n=9 · indicative	1.20%–2.45% n=11	1.01%–2.29% n=6 · indicative	—
Insurance broker	—	3.21%–4.68% n=10	0.76%–1.70% n=10	0.67%–1.01% n=9 · indicative	0.31%–0.50% n=6 · indicative
Management consultant	—	0.31%–0.41% n=13	0.37%–0.92% n=11	—	—
Quantity surveyor	—	—	0.79%–1.79% n=5 · indicative	0.53%–0.83% n=14	—

The under-£25,000 cells for accountants, surveyors and solicitors are indicative (6, 9 and 5 placements) and the surveyor cell is very widely spread; the architect cell (101 placements) is the one we would quote. For the smallest firms the rate-times-fees presentation breaks down and the honest figure is “from £300”. Not every profession follows the pattern neatly: management consultants’ £25,000–£100,000 rate (0.31%–0.41%) is below their £100,000–£250,000 rate and implies premiums under £300 for £1m at £50,000 of fees, and the solicitor bands move unevenly.

Accountants versus architects at the same size

At the same fee income, advice is priced very differently from design. An accountancy practice with £500,000 of fees typically paid £1,540–£2,390 a year for £1m of cover (n=54); an architecture practice of the same size paid £2,790–£5,740 (n=168), 1.81 to 2.40 times as much. Across all sizes the gap is similar: 0.35%–0.57% of fees for accountants against 0.83%–2.14% for architects. Management consultants (0.37%–0.92%) sit near accountants; chartered surveyors (0.92%–2.10%) sit with architects; solicitors (1.19%–2.88%) and insurance brokers (0.65%–2.94%), both £1m-equivalent, sit in between; and civil and structural engineers (1.37%–3.88%, small sample) are the highest-rated.

Method in full

How we compiled these figures

The ranges on this page come from Apex Insurance Brokers’ own recent professional indemnity placements — around 1,150 policies after outlier removal (data extracted 1 November 2026). For each profession and fee band we took the premium each client paid as a percentage of their annual fees, removed unusually high outliers, and show the middle half of what remained: a quarter of clients paid less than the bottom of the range and a quarter paid more than the top.

Every policy has been converted to the equivalent cost of a £1 million limit of indemnity so that different limits can be compared like for like. We scale between limits with fixed factors (0.75 for £250,000, 0.85 for £500,000, 1.20 for £2m, 1.45 for £5m). They are set in our rate guide, not measured from our placement data. Premium ranges are the rate range multiplied by a representative fee figure, subject to a minimum premium of £300, and rounded to the nearest £10.

We only show a range where we have at least five placements in that cell; where we have fewer, the cell is left blank. Small cells (nine placements or fewer) are marked as indicative.

The extract does not record the look-back period of the placements, so we describe them as recent and will state the period at a later refresh. Insurance Premium Tax is charged at 12% on UK general insurance premiums. Our extract does not record whether each premium was captured before or after IPT, so the figures may be quoted before or after IPT — treat them as indicative to within that margin.

These figures are not a quote. Your premium depends on your activities, claims history, limit, excess, and the insurer’s view of your business. Get a quote for a figure specific to you.

In more detail:

Source. Apex Insurance Brokers’ placement records: 1,157 policies across 18 profession labels and 42 profession-by-fee-band cells after trimming, extracted 1 November 2026.
Statistic. For each cell, the first and third quartiles (Q1 and Q3) of premium divided by annual fee income, after removing unusually high outliers. The published range is Q1 to Q3: the middle half.
Fee bands. Under £25,000; £25,000–£100,000; £100,000–£250,000; £250,000–£1m; £1m–£3m; £3m–£10m (lower bound inclusive, upper exclusive).
Limit normalisation. Every premium is converted to a £1m-limit equivalent using fixed factors of 0.75 for £250,000, 0.85 for £500,000, 1.00 for £1m, 1.20 for £2m and 1.45 for £5m; other limits map to the nearest factor, so £3m solicitor policies are treated as £2m. The factors are set in our rate guide, not measured from the placements.
Premium figures. Fee point multiplied by the Q1 and Q3 rates, then the limit factor, then a £300 minimum premium, then rounding to the nearest £10. Fee points are the geometric midpoint of the band and round figures inside it; under-£25,000 bands are published as a rate only, as “from £300”, because the £300 minimum premium dominates them. Where both quartiles imply a premium below the minimum, we publish the rate only.
Publication gates. A cell is shown only with five or more placements after trimming; cells of nine or fewer are marked indicative. A profession is published in full with twenty or more placements overall and at least two bands of eight or more: architects, accountants, chartered surveyors, solicitors, civil and structural engineers, insurance brokers and management consultants meet the test. Quantity surveyors have twenty or more placements but one qualifying band, so they are published as rates. IT consultants are published as an all-sizes rate from thirteen placements and marked indicative. Financial advisers, mortgage brokers, project managers, mechanical and electrical engineers and engineers recorded without a discipline are not published.
Claims uplift. A per-profession multiplier computed by the rate guide where the placements support it (1.10 for architects and accountants, 1.14 for chartered surveyors and 1.43 for solicitors); otherwise the guide’s default of 1.30, which applies to civil and structural engineers.

Limitations

Sample sizes. Architects (647) dominate; solicitors (48), insurance brokers (38), engineers (30), management consultants (29) and quantity surveyors (22) are small, IT consultants (13) very small, and several cells sit at nine placements or fewer. n is printed with every figure for that reason.
Middle half, not full range. A quarter of firms in each cell paid less than the bottom of the range and a quarter more than the top. Firms with claims, unusual activities or high limits sit outside it.
£1m normalisation. The scaling factors are the ones used in our rate guide, not a market-wide law and not measured from our data. For solicitors and FCA-regulated firms, who cannot buy £1m, the £1m figure is an artefact of the method.
Trimmed outliers. Unusually high premiums were removed before the quartiles were taken, so heavily loaded risks are under-represented.
Apex placements only. These are the firms that came to an independent broker and were placed; they are not a census of the UK market, and a firm that stayed with a direct insurer or a scheme is not in the data.
Period. The extract does not record the look-back window; the placements are recent and the period will be stated at a later refresh.
Insurance Premium Tax. As the method box says, the extract does not record whether premiums were captured before or after IPT at 12%.
Activity mix. Fee bands do not separate activities within a profession. A conveyancing-heavy law firm or a valuation-heavy surveying practice will sit above the range for its band.
Profession labels. Placements carry the profession label recorded at placement. Some labels overlap, such as engineers recorded without a discipline, and those are not published until they are reclassified.
Cells excluded by hand. The solicitor £3m–£10m cell and the IT consultant £250k–£1m cell fell to four placements after trimming and are excluded; a fix so the publishing script applies the five-placement gate after trimming is pending.

How to cite this Index

How to cite: Apex Insurance Brokers, Apex PI Premium Index 2026, apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/apex-pi-premium-index-2026/, data extracted 1 November 2026.

You may quote any statistic on this page with that attribution and a link. Please carry the n and the caveat where one is stated. The Index is republished at this address when the data is refreshed; the data-extraction date in the citation identifies the edition. The first edition used data extracted 6 September 2026.

Frequently asked

What is the Apex PI Premium Index?

A data report from Apex Insurance Brokers’ own professional indemnity placements — 1,157 policies after outlier trimming, extracted 1 November 2026 — showing the middle-half premium as a percentage of fees and in pounds at a £1m limit, by profession and fee band, for the 7 professions with a large enough sample, plus all-sizes rates for two more. It is published so that professionals, journalists and AI assistants have a sourced figure to work from instead of an advertised from-price.

How were the figures calculated?

For each profession and fee band we took each client’s premium as a percentage of annual fees, removed unusually high outliers, and took the first and third quartiles. Premiums were normalised to a £1m limit with fixed factors, multiplied by a representative fee figure, floored at the £300 minimum premium and rounded to the nearest £10. Cells with fewer than five placements are not shown; nine or fewer are marked indicative.

Why publish the middle half rather than an average?

Because PI premiums are skewed: a few claims-loaded or high-limit firms pull an average up, and the £300 minimum premium pulls the smallest firms’ rates up. The interquartile range tells a firm where half of comparable clients landed, which is the question a buyer is actually asking. We publish n with every figure so that the reliability of each range is visible.

How much does PI cost for IT consultants?

In our placements IT consultants paid 0.26%–0.35% of annual fees for a £1m-equivalent limit across all firm sizes (n=13), the lowest rate in our data. The sample is small, so treat it as indicative; at fees under about £100,000 the rate implies a premium below £300. A quote on your own fees, clients and contracts gives the real figure.

Why are some professions missing?

We publish a profession in full when it has twenty or more placements and at least two fee bands with eight or more, and an all-sizes rate when it has twenty or more. Financial advisers, mortgage brokers, project managers and mechanical and electrical engineers fall short, and engineers recorded without a discipline need reclassifying first. IT consultants are shown below the threshold, marked indicative.

Can I quote these figures?

Yes, with attribution: Apex Insurance Brokers, Apex PI Premium Index 2026, apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/apex-pi-premium-index-2026/, data extracted 1 November 2026. Please carry the n and any caveat stated with the figure, and describe the ranges as the middle half of placements rather than as averages or quotes.

When will the Index be updated?

When the placement data is refreshed. The Index is republished at the same address, the data-extraction date changes, and the method stays the same unless we say otherwise on this page. If you have cited an earlier edition, the extraction date in your citation identifies it.

Want a figure for your own firm?

The Index gives the range for firms like yours; a quote gives the number. Or call 0117 325 0027.

Get a quote Start the proposal form

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information, not advice on your individual circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms. Premium figures shown are historic typical ranges from Apex’s own placements, not quotes.