OpenRate — filing-derived competitive intelligence

What competitors asked for, what they were granted, what they disclosed, and what their loss ratios did next — on free public data, open source. Not a comparative rater: no premium quotes, no shopping data. Read-only; refreshed by an offline pipeline.

Disclaimer — please read before relying on anything on this page. This is a research/educational dashboard built for the CAS 2026 Ratemaking paper.

  • No warranty. All data and calculations are provided "as is," without warranty of accuracy, completeness, or timeliness. Every figure carries an as-of date and reflects public data that lags real experience.
  • Not actuarial advice. Nothing here is an actuarial work product, opinion, or rate indication, and it is not a substitute for the professional judgment of a qualified actuary working under the applicable Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOPs). Several Werner & Modlin steps are deliberately not implemented.
  • Not legal advice.
  • Antitrust / information-sharing caution. This tool aggregates only rate figures that carriers have already filed or published publicly; it is a transparency aid, not a mechanism for competitor coordination or price signaling, and must be used consistently with antitrust and unfair-trade-practices law.
  • Data-source terms respected. Public sources (CA CDI public notices, NAIC reports, SEC EDGAR, FRED, CAS Schedule P) are used per their public terms; SERFF Filing Access is never scraped; no personal or confidential data is stored.
  • Your responsibility. Although this tool was built with care to respect all applicable legalities, it is the user's sole responsibility to ensure that any use complies with all applicable state, federal, and other laws and regulations, including insurance rating and filing laws.
  • Open source under MPL-2.0 for full auditability and reproducibility.

What this is

An open-source, filing-derived competitive intelligence view for P&C pricing, built entirely on free public sources: what each carrier asked for, what the regulator granted, what the filing disclosed about how it got there — and, uniquely, what that carrier's loss ratio did afterwards.

Every figure regenerates from a script over checksummed public data. Released under MPL-2.0.

What it is not

This is not a comparative rater, and saying so plainly matters more than a feature list:

It does not Why
Price a given risk profile That needs a competitor's full rating algorithm — base rates and every table. Vendors hand-build and QA these across tens of thousands of rate sets; public filings rarely contain the whole manual.
Build market baskets from quotes Needs observed quote and shopping behaviour from an agency or aggregator panel. No public source replaces it.
Replicate insurance credit scores Proprietary models.
Run disruption analysis on your book Needs your own policy file, which only you have.

What no vendor sells, and this does

The join from a filing to that writer's subsequently realized loss ratio, at group-state-line-year grain — via the fact that California's "Grp #" is the NAIC group code. That gives the indicated → approved → realized triangle: what a carrier said it needed, what it got, and what then developed.

What is behind the numbers
Approved rate actions CA CDI Approval-and-Closed lists — the disposition, never the notice-time ask
Realized loss ratios NAIC Market Share Reports (free annual PDFs), 2019–2024 — direct loss ratio, not combined
Disclosed selections and factor tables The filings themselves, read by an open-weights model on a laptop at no per-filing cost
Trend corpus 143 filings · 43 carrier groups · 8 coverages · 779 coverage blocks carrying a selection

Honest limits. Only the top ten writers per state are published, so roughly a third of approved filings find a loss ratio and the long tail is invisible. Selected trends appear in about a fifth of filings and development factors in a seventh — a disclosure ceiling no tooling lifts. California is the deep panel because its channels permit automated retrieval; SERFF states are hand-retrieved, since the NAIC User Agreement bars automation.

Full vendor-by-vendor comparison: docs/COMPETITIVE_LANDSCAPE.md in the repository.