Topic: the broker-versus-direct question for SME insurance buyers. Spokesperson: Matt Bartlett, Director, Apex Insurance Brokers Limited.
This briefing covers Apex’s position on the broker-versus-direct question — when an SME buyer should use a broker, when the direct channel works, and where the broker model has to evolve. It is the briefing that supports podcast and feature work on the SME insurance buying journey, on the broker advocacy that BIBA and others run, and on the wider question of where the broker model fits in 2026.
The angle is broker-side and explicit about it. Apex is a broker; the firm’s commercial interests sit on the broker side; the briefing is written in that knowledge and tries to be honest about what the direct channel does well as well as what it cannot do. A journalist using this briefing for a balanced piece should also seek a direct-channel insurer’s view.
The broker-versus-direct question depends entirely on the risk being placed. For a simple, low-value, low-complexity risk — single van, sole-trader trade liability, simple landlord cover on a single property — the direct channel works fine and the broker model adds limited value. For anything that involves a proposal form with discretionary information, a wording that has material variation across the market, or a claims pattern where the broker-client relationship matters at notification, the broker model is the model that fits.
The framing Apex uses is straightforward: the direct channel works where the product is commoditised and the risk is uniform. The broker model is needed where the product is not commoditised and the risk is not uniform. Most SME commercial insurance — and almost all professional indemnity — sits in the second category.
“The direct channel works for commoditised risk. Most SME commercial risk isn’t commoditised. That’s the answer to the broker-versus-direct question.”
“There’s no direct-channel route to a well-placed solicitor’s PI renewal. That’s not a marketing line — it’s the structure of the product.”
“A good broker earns their commission three times — once at placement, once at servicing, and once when something goes wrong. The buyer who never claims doesn’t always see the value. The buyer who does claim never forgets it.”
“The broker model has to evolve, and broker complacency is the real threat to broker share. The direct channel isn’t the threat. Lazy brokers are.”
“Comparison sites work for simple personal lines. They do not work for a £15m-turnover design firm placing PI through the soft cycle. The market has tried that argument and it has not survived contact with the renewal cycle.”
“The broker model is justified by the broker’s depth on the risk. If the broker can’t articulate why their wording knowledge, their proposal-form discipline and their claims experience matter to the client, the broker model isn’t earning its keep on that placement.”
“For SME buyers in 2026, the question is not whether to use a broker. It is which broker. The bad broker is worse than the direct channel; the good broker is the only option.”
The proportion of UK commercial insurance placed through brokers — over 75% by GWP — is the most-cited industry-level statistic on the broker share of commercial business. BIBA and the FCA publish on this and it is the basis on which Apex frames the broker-share argument. For specific current numbers, journalists should source from BIBA’s most recent member statement or from the FCA’s general insurance distribution data.
Apex’s own client book is approximately 100% broker-placed — the firm operates as a broker only and does not work as a direct insurer.
Apex services SME and mid-market clients across the South West and nationally on the PI book.
The Insurance Distribution Directive and the FCA’s ICOBS handbook set out the regulatory obligations on commercial brokers, including the requirement to act in the customer’s best interests and the requirement to give appropriate information to the customer.
Apex will not name a specific direct-channel insurer in critical terms.
Apex will not claim a market share number for Apex specifically without verifiable definition.
Apex will not give general financial advice or general insurance advice to a generic reader. Specific buying decisions sit with specific buyers, taking advice on their specific circumstances.
Apex will not deny that the direct channel adds value where it does — for the commoditised personal lines and simple SME risks. The honest broker position is that the direct channel is a useful part of the market, just not the right route for most commercial risk.
Three places. The first is at placement. The broker reads the wording, the underwriter’s appetite, the rate landscape and the client’s risk in a way the direct channel cannot. The broker writes the proposal form as a working document, tests the market, and brings back a recommended placement. The second is at servicing. The broker handles mid-term adjustments, runs the renewal cycle, refreshes the proposal form, surfaces emerging exposures and keeps the cover aligned to the client’s business as the business moves between renewals. The third is at claims. The broker handles first notification, runs the claim with the insurer in the client’s interest, and protects the client’s position under the policy and under the Insurance Act 2015. The direct channel can do the first of those at simple risk; it does the second weakly; it does the third unevenly.
Simple personal lines — motor, home, travel, the products that are largely commoditised. Simple SME products — single-van commercial motor, basic sole-trader liability, simple landlord cover on a single property — where the risk is uniform across the market and the wording variation is small. The direct channel also works at the low-value renewal end of more complex products where the buyer is genuinely indifferent to cover variations and the price is the binding question. Apex does not pretend the direct channel adds no value.
Three common failures. The first is mis-rated cover — the buyer’s proposal-form answers are not tested or refined, and the rating produced does not reflect the risk fairly, in either direction. The second is mis-fitted cover — the wording the buyer gets does not respond to the risks the firm actually carries, either because the cover excludes the key exposure or because the limits and excess are wrongly set. The third is failed claims — when something goes wrong, there is no broker advocating for the client, and the buyer is engaging the insurer’s claims process alone. The buyer often does not notice the first two failures until the third happens.
Yes — and broker complacency is a real risk to broker share. The work of the broker in 2026 is more demanding than the work of the broker in 2010. The wordings are more complex, the markets more fragmented, the regulatory expectations higher, the proposal-form discipline tighter, and the buyer’s tolerance for slow servicing lower. Brokers who treat the renewal as an annual administrative event rather than a working broker-buyer relationship are losing share, and they should be. The good news is the good broker model is in better shape than ever. The broker who runs proposal-form discipline, services actively between renewals, handles claims in the client’s interest and writes plain-English explanations of cover is winning business that direct-channel insurers cannot reach.
The honest answer is: not at the placement level for non-commoditised risk. AI can help a broker run a tidier proposal-form refresh, a faster comparison of wording variations, and a better-organised renewal pipeline. AI does not replace the broker’s wording knowledge, the broker’s relationship with the underwriting cadre, or the broker’s claims handling. AI can help the direct channel get faster and cheaper at commoditised risk, where it already works. The structural difference between commoditised and non-commoditised risk does not change. What may change is the speed of placement on either side.
By being demonstrably better at the three jobs above. The honest broker conversation with a client is — here is what we will do at placement, here is what we will do between renewals, here is what we will do if you have a claim. If the broker cannot articulate that and demonstrate it, the commission is not earned. Where Apex sits on this is straightforward — the broker model is earned every renewal, every mid-term adjustment, every claim. There is no entitlement.
Marginally, on the simpler SME end where the direct channel has improved. Materially, no — the structural reasons the broker model exists are not under threat. The threat to broker share is broker quality. A market full of lazy brokers loses share to the direct channel because the broker is not providing the value the model assumes. A market full of competent brokers retains its share, because the structural case for the broker holds up against the competent broker doing the work.
A structured proposal-form refresh at every renewal. A named Client Executive owning day-to-day servicing. A working content estate that explains cover, wording and market position to clients in plain English. A claims notification process that protects the client’s position from first call. A specialism in PI for professional firms and in commercial for the SME sectors named in the firm’s book. Apex’s bet is that doing the broker work properly is what justifies the broker model — not the model itself.
Yes. Sole-trader public liability at the lowest premium band, single-van motor cover for a small business, simple landlord cover on a single residential property, basic travel and business travel cover. None of those needs a broker model on the placement side. The buyer can find better value through the direct channel for those risks. Apex would say so, and does say so when asked.
The best broker-versus-direct pieces are honest about where the direct channel works and where it does not. A piece that argues the broker is always right is not credible; a piece that argues the direct channel is always cheaper is not credible. The honest narrative is risk-dependent and product-dependent.
The best pieces name specific products and specific risks rather than talking about “commercial insurance” as a single market. A piece that distinguishes between motor fleet, SME PI, property owner cover and consumer travel has the texture trade press readers expect.
The best pieces quote both broker and direct-channel voices in balanced terms. Apex’s view is broker-side and the briefing says so; a balanced piece will pair it with a direct-channel view.
For media enquiries: Matt Bartlett, Director — matthew.bartlett@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk — 0117 325 0027. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited, FCA FRN 724952, Companies House 07014570. Trading address: QCS, 53 Queen Charlotte Street, Bristol BS1 4HQ.
Last reviewed: June 2026.
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote