Top MGAs in Canada | 5-Star Brokers on MGAs

Introducing the top MGAs in Canada for 2026

Canada’s brokers don’t want more MGAs; they want the right ones. Insurance Business Canada’s 2026 Brokers on MGAs, which set out to find the top MGAs in Canada, found a channel where brokers are concentrating their trust in a smaller, proven set of managing general agents (MGAs) rather than casting a wider net.

The share of brokers using an MGA 11–50 times in six months rose four points to 54 percent, even as the share of their book placed through MGAs held essentially flat, at 44 percent versus 45 percent in 2024. Rate every MGA on responsiveness, and it’s obvious why: brokers know exactly which partners have earned that trust.

A gap of 1.63 points on a 5-point scale separates the best-rated MGA in this year’s survey from the worst, nearly double the spread in reputation, the field’s most consistent category. Brokers aren’t shopping for more MGA relationships. They’re getting ruthless about which ones deserve to keep them.

That modest uptick in frequency, rather than in overall book share, is telling. It points to brokers deepening their working relationship with fewer, more trusted MGAs, the channel consolidating in depth even as it holds flat in breadth.

That flattening sits at the level of individual broker relationships, not the wider Canadian MGA industry. Steve Masnyk, former executive director of the Canadian Association of Managing General Agents (CAMGA), has predicted MGAs could grow their share of the Canadian commercial market from about 20 percent to close to 50 percent over the next five to 10 years, closing the gap with more MGA-penetrated markets like the United States and United Kingdom. The scale is already substantial in at least one province: Ontario’s MGA channel generated six percent of the province’s total P&C direct written premium in 2023, roughly $2.3 billion, according to the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA). This survey’s plateau is specific; it reflects how much of their own book brokers who already use MGAs choose to place through them, a measure distinct from the MGA channel’s overall size, which continues to expand, as shown above.

For several years, the story behind Canada’s 5-Star MGAs was one of expansion: more brokers turning to more MGAs for more of their business. That’s the headline number, and it hasn’t moved. The one that matters more is what happens once growth alone stops being the differentiator. This year’s survey asked brokers to rate each of their wholesale partners across nine performance categories, including responsiveness, technical expertise, and pricing, and what separates this year’s winners from the rest has nothing to do with size.

Sean Duggan, senior vice president, special risks and claims, at KRGinsure in Orillia, Ontario, says that the spread comes down to how well an MGA balances a specific set of strengths against what brokers actually need.

“The best MGAs will effectively align their strengths and adapt to broker expectations on value and their clients’ evolving needs in both hard and soft market cycles, namely providing stable capacity, niche expertise and specialization, speed of service, nimble underwriting, product innovation, accessible platforms, and, finally, responsive claims service,” he says.

A total of 14 MGAs earned this year’s 5-Star recognition, with products across four different MGAs named Brokers’ Pick medallists based on broker vote.

What sets this year’s winners apart, brokers say, is doing business better than competitors, whether that means underwriting risk the standard market has abandoned, holding a specialist niche no one else will compete for, or simply answering the phone faster than the MGA down the hall.

Hundreds of brokers responded to this year’s survey, rating their MGA relationships not just on the fundamentals of price and coverage but on service trajectory, technology adoption, and claims handling. What emerges is a broker base that is broadly satisfied with the MGA channel as it exists today but increasingly discerning about which partners earn a place in that channel going forward.

Claims and responsiveness set today’s top MGAs apart

Not every category separates strong MGAs from weaker ones equally. Some, like reputation, are places where nearly every MGA performs similarly. Others, like responsiveness, show a much wider gap between the best and worst performers, which is where this year’s differentiation is really happening.

Across the MGAs surveyed for this report, responsiveness split the field more than any other category, with a full 1.63-point spread on the 5-point scale between the best and worst performer. Reputation, by contrast, barely moved between MGAs. Technical expertise and reputation both score highest on average, suggesting most MGAs have the fundamentals in hand. Compensation is the only category to average below 4.0 across the full field, and it shows the second-widest spread after responsiveness.

Duggan says this tracks with what he sees driving broker loyalty day to day. “Claims handling by MGAs is generally improved, with faster communication and increased visibility with data insights, as well as better service timelines, stakeholder integration, and reliable client outcomes,” he says. “It remains a key metric and differentiator for MGAs, but there is always room for improvement, such as faster claims cycle times, more consistent client communication, and sharing portfolio insights with brokers to stay ahead of emerging trends and issues.” That emphasis on claims as a trust-builder echoes what IBC found in its own 5-Star Claims rankings for Canadian insurers in 2026, where responsiveness and communication were the deciding factors between top and bottom performers.

On technical expertise specifically, the category with the highest average score in this year’s survey, Duggan points to the underwriting bench itself as the real differentiator. “A deep bench of responsive and relationship-driven underwriters who are solution-oriented, understand industry-specific exposures and evolving risks, and use this knowledge to provide tailored solutions with innovative products to brokers and clients,” he says, adding that this matters more than it used to. “Risks are becoming more complex and less predictable as change accelerates, making expertise, technology, and innovative products even more critical now to keep pace.”

That technical bench is most visible, Duggan says, in how an MGA handles niche or emerging risk, the kind of business standard markets won’t touch. “This is a core reason MGAs exist, combining specialized underwriting expertise, market access, technology, and product innovation to add value for brokers and serve clients,” he says. Real skill in this space, he adds, is about more than a willingness to say yes. “It involves effective and competitive pricing, nimble service, and matching innovative products with a deep understanding of specific industry sectors and key risks for those classes.” It’s a useful lens heading into the winners ahead, several of whom built their reputation on exactly this kind of specialized placement.

Compensation’s weaker showing doesn’t surprise him either. Duggan frames it as a structural question about how compensation is built, weighing growth, retention, and long-term portfolio quality together. “It should be balanced and multi-faceted, rewarding growth and volume, retention, and long-term portfolio quality,” he says. “Taking a longer-term view, with full transparency on compensation incentives, is also an important feature of any successful partnership with MGAs.”

He also raises a factor the survey didn’t directly measure but that increasingly shapes how brokers evaluate a partner behind the scenes. “Many brokers have elevated their levels of due diligence of MGAs’ governance framework and controls, using compliance checklists and disclosure requirements, to prequalify MGA partners and mitigate customer risk,” he says.

Taken together, the picture is of a field splitting in two:

• MGAs coasting on existing relationships and a baseline reputation
• a smaller group (IBC’s 2026 winners) pulling decisively ahead on responsiveness, claims handling, and niche expertise

It’s the clearest evidence yet that brokers aren’t chasing more MGAs; they’re chasing the right ones.

Canadian MGA market trends: broker satisfaction and challenges

In addition to the headline usage numbers, this year’s survey asked brokers to grade their MGA relationships in more granular terms, on service trajectory, technology, and claims, and to name what frustrates them and what they wish existed. The picture that emerges is a market broadly satisfied with the status quo but with clear points brokers want addressed.

Service quality is trending in the right direction. More than half of brokers, 52 percent, say the MGAs they work with have improved service over the past year, while 44 percent say it has held steady and just 4 percent report a decline. That improvement is showing up most visibly in technology: brokers rate ease of doing business through their MGAs’ digital platforms highly, with 79 percent describing themselves as satisfied or very satisfied. Policy administration and digital quoting platforms and broker submission portals are, by a wide margin, the technologies brokers say their MGAs have used most successfully, a pattern consistent with what IBC found in its Global 5-Star Technology and Software Providers rankings earlier this year.

That progress isn’t universal, however. A meaningful minority of brokers described a preference for the old way of doing things or said their MGA simply hasn’t caught up. One broker said their MGA relies on “traditional email for submissions” because “our business is too niche” for a portal to handle well. Another broker was more direct about resisting the shift entirely, saying, “I still like to go directly to the underwriter. Prefer not to use portals as they are too time-consuming.”

Where brokers do have complaints, they cluster around three areas: pricing competitiveness, turnaround speed, and underwriting flexibility. Pricing was the single most-cited frustration, cited by roughly 12 percent of brokers who answered the question, with one broker noting simply that “prices are often higher than other MGAs, which is why they aren’t my first choice.”

Turnaround time was close behind, particularly on complex or specialty submissions. One broker described the experience as feeling like “I am the underwriter,” adding, “I don’t mind doing one app, but four portals drive me nuts.”

Others pointed to a lack of underwriting flexibility, with brokers describing MGAs that “cannot think outside the box” or that force referrals back to an underwriter for decisions brokers feel they should be able to make themselves.

Claims handling follows a different pattern. Nearly half of respondents, 45 percent, said they simply hadn’t had a claim to judge their MGA on yet. Among those who had, sentiment ran strongly positive, but the sheer number of “no experience yet” answers is itself worth noting.

Finally, brokers were asked what coverage they wish their MGA partners offered but currently don’t. No single gap dominated, but earthquake and water-deductible buydown products, standalone cyber for personal lines, short-term rental and vacant dwelling coverage, and condo and strata-specific products each came up repeatedly, pointing to specific, addressable white space rather than a broad complaint about product breadth.

5-Star MGAs 2026: Two winners, two philosophies

What brings brokers back

For Cameron Copeland, president of SPG Canada, based in Vancouver, the flattening in broker-MGA relationships hasn’t changed what actually drives loyalty: brokers are focused on growing their own business, not adding more wholesale partners to do it. “Brokers are still trying to grow their business, and I think that’s the thing that matters. That’s what we stay focused on.”

“

“What was a specialty yesterday is treated as standard today, and in that arena, we win through our scale, our investment in trust, our long-standing relationships, and our management of claims, the proven track record over the years”

Cameron Copeland

SPG Canada

Brokers running a renewal book still need a subscription manager they trust for that side of the business, he says, and SPG Canada positions itself as that single, dependable partner rather than one of a dozen small MGAs a broker has to juggle.

The second part is differentiation, where he says the value shows up in flexibility rather than familiarity. “If a broker is serving a client well and they’ve got a new operation putting the focus on coverage, that’s where our toolbox and our experience with tricky coverages can help. If the broker has competition from another broker underpricing them, our flexibility on coverage and price can help them retain or win that risk,” he adds.

“If the client is suffering an economic downturn, whether that’s construction, trucking, or another industry facing headwinds, we’ve got the flexibility to do things like premium adjustment features or balancing deductible and coverage limits with price to help them through it.”

Copeland is direct about what a narrower, cheaper competitor can and can’t offer in comparison. “A new entrant might have a really good solution in one area, buying market share so they’re super cheap. That helps a broker where price is the issue, but it doesn’t help where coverage is the issue or where the client needs product expertise the broker doesn’t otherwise have access to.”

The pitch, as he frames it, is that a broker working with several specialists is stuck matching each problem to a different partner. “Within one relationship with us, they can say, ‘Today I’ve got this situation, tomorrow I’ve got that one, and our deck of underwriters and our toolbox of products can meet those needs.’”

For Jeff Hart, president and CEO of Vailo Insurance Services, based in Vancouver, BC, who has spent more than 25 years in the MGA space, brokers come back for consistency rather than growth for its own sake.

“Our brokers know that when they come to Vailo, they’re going to get a response one way or the other, and it’s going to be a thoughtful, respectful response,” he says. “We’re an underwriting MGA. We’re not out there looking to cash flow underwriting, so there is trust in what we do.”

That discipline extends to how Vailo manages its book over time. “We take it to heart that we need to maintain profitable underwriting contracts, because that’s what we need to carry on our business and continue to support our brokers on a go-forward basis,” he says.

“Our brokers don’t want to see us chasing premium levels where they probably shouldn’t go, because it’s not sustainable from an underwriting profitability standpoint. So, we find that middle ground. But the most important thing for us is our trust, our relationship, our service levels to our brokers, and our technical expertise, which sets us apart from many of our competitors.”

The specialist’s case

Brokers surveyed for this report singled out SPG Canada’s willingness to take on clients the standard market has already turned away, including those cancelled for non-payment or with a history of multiple claims.

Copeland says that willingness rests on two things. “It’s how we use our people and our product in these situations and what makes us different in doing so.”

The people side, he says, comes down to experience earned over multiple market cycles. “Our people have been creative MGA underwriters for a long time. They’ve gone through multiple market cycles; they’ve seen competitors come and leave; they’ve seen the standard carriers. Many of our people have worked for standard carriers before, so they understand their pricing and their approach, and they stay in a narrow lane. Our people are very experienced at how to step outside that lane and help a client.”

On the mechanics of actually underwriting a risk the standard market has walked away from, he describes a deliberate rebalancing of who carries the risk. “Largely speaking, what we do is figure out how we can transfer enough of the risk back to the client that they can still financially withstand, but that gives them enough skin in the game that we’re aligned. Then we accept the risk transfer for the financial exposure they can’t absorb themselves. You want to increase the client’s retention just a little bit, so you have alignment in managing the risk upfront.”

Standard carriers, he says, simply won’t put in that work. “If it doesn’t fit their lane and their appetite, they’ll choose to work on other things, but that brings it into our world.”

The other half of the answer is SPG Canada’s subscription structure, spreading a single risk across multiple carriers rather than placing it with one insurer alone. “If we get it wrong, one carrier isn’t paying the full brunt of the loss. We’re spreading it across multiple carriers where we have enough premium in the pool within that class of business to support that fractional size of the loss. A single carrier may not have enough premium in the pool to support 100 percent of the loss.”

Copeland calls it a genuinely strategic part of the business. “If you’re going to take a little more risk up front, you have to manage how you’re going to handle the severity on the back end. We do that through subscription, and we’re a very efficient subscription manager.”

The generalist’s case

Brokers describe Vailo as a strong generalist across CGL and specialty property, and for Hart, that breadth is a deliberate choice rather than a hedge against picking a lane.

“

“We’re deep in our expertise in casualty, with senior underwriters running our portfolios and on the front lines, but it’s also important for us to make sure we have broad capabilities so brokers can come to Vailo and write all the lines required to package up a policy”

Jeff Hart

Vailo Insurance Services

The advantage, as he frames it, is efficiency rather than versatility for its own sake. “It’s more efficient for a broker to come to Vailo and place their casualty plus the other ancillary lines of business, rather than having to place four or five different policies for their client. We try to broaden out our product scope as much as possible to bundle it together into a package. It obviously helps with renewal retention, but it also helps our brokers be more efficient with their time.”

That same efficiency drive is behind Vailo’s investment in VEE, the company’s proprietary digital quoting and binding platform. “We’re building VEE to take that efficiency even further, giving brokers a faster, more direct way to quote and bind with us digitally, without losing the underwriting discipline that’s always been our foundation,” he says. “It’s not about replacing the relationship or the expertise. It’s about removing friction so brokers can get to a decision faster.”

With the market tight across the board, he says that efficiency argument matters more than it used to. “The market’s the market right now, and it’s tough going for everybody. If we can provide some efficiency to ourselves and to our brokers, adding on some of those ancillary coverages that help get an account across the line for both ourselves and our brokers, then it’s a win-win.”

Where the discipline shows

Copeland treats pricing and speed as two separate problems, not a single trade-off. On pricing, the discipline is rooted in data. “Pricing is around competitiveness and sustainability. The premium produced by a class of business needs to support the losses within that class, and if the premium collected isn’t supporting the losses, we’re going to have an issue over the longer term. That’s what leads to the market cycle. Certainly, in a soft market, pricing does go below sustainability in many classes of business, so whether it’s an MGA or an insurance company, we will all reach walkaway points within classes that suffer from overcompetition, oversupply, and people buying market share instead of staying price disciplined.”

SPG Canada’s answer to that pressure is its own claims and pricing history. “We have an incredible database of information over our history, which allows us to develop technical pricing knowledge and really understand what the loss cost is. That’s our North Star. Then it’s building expertise and flexibility with our underwriters so they can price around that, using coverage and deductible features to be more competitive without walking away from discipline.” He’s candid that walking away from a risk is sometimes the right call and that the underwriters need to feel supported when they make it. “We just have to trust that if the industry does what it’s done in the past, it’ll overcorrect in the wrong direction, and that will come back.”

On speed, he doesn’t dispute that SPG Canada is struggling with it and explains why in some detail. “All of our renewals are being worked like new business because we’re applying new pricing, tools, and coverage to nearly every account. There’s generally an issue with every file, whether that’s broker competition, an economic headwind, or a client wanting more coverage, and bringing fresh eyes to that takes resources,” he says. “At the same time, our success rate on new business is going down because more people are competing for it.”

The result is a deliberate prioritization. “We’re working harder on our renewal book and having less success on new business, so we’re prioritizing with a bias toward our existing clients, the files that need rethinking, and the brokers dealing with situations outside their control.”

He offers brokers a concrete way to help. “If a submission comes in addressed to eight different underwriting companies, it probably has a low success probability, and we’ll likely deprioritize it. If an email comes in addressed only to us saying, ‘I need your help solving this problem,’ that’s something we can focus on, and it increases the chance of success. So, if brokers want to help us with speed, help us prioritize the opportunity. Help us understand if this is one to lean into or one where our time is better spent elsewhere.”

For Hart, the discipline shows up on the pricing side of that same tension. “We definitely want to stay competitive on the service side of things and make sure that we’re relevant on all our key pillars of service, expertise, relationships, and trust,” he says. “We appreciate and understand that we need to be competitive from a pricing and coverage standpoint, but we understand where the lines are in the sand from a pricing standpoint, and our brokers understand that there are certain walkaway points.”

That transparency, he says, is what earns Vailo credibility on both sides of the table. “That’s frankly how we get the respect that we do get from our brokers and our carrier partners; we need to be competitive, but we’re not going to follow it to the bottom. There are walkaway points, but we do it respectfully, openly, and transparently to our brokers.”

He says the same discipline reassures Vailo’s carrier partners. “They appreciate that we’re good stewards of their capacity and that they’re in good hands. We’ve been doing this long enough that we understand and appreciate where that line is.”

Five more of Canada’s top MGAs of 2026

Growth returns to the mid-market, not the broker relationship

The next 12–24 months look less like a continuation of this year’s plateau and more like a shift in where MGA growth happens. Masnyk points to fronting capacity arrangements as the likely driver, structures where a lead carrier and a group of reinsurers back an MGA with enough capacity to write mid-market risk rather than staying confined to the smaller commercial accounts MGAs have traditionally handled.

In the US and UK, nearly half of MGA capacity already flows through arrangements like these; Canada is still early in that shift, and brokers working with MGAs today may find those same partners bidding on considerably larger accounts within a few years.

That growth is likely to arrive alongside tighter scrutiny. The same broker due diligence trend already showing up in this year’s survey – such as compliance checklists, disclosure requirements, and governance reviews – is consistent with a market where MGAs are being asked to prove reliability at greater scale, not just greater speed.

The MGAs best positioned for the next two years look a lot like this year’s 5-Star winners. They are strong on responsiveness and technical depth, comfortable with complexity, and increasingly able to demonstrate it.

What this year’s 5-Star winners have in common

This year’s 5-Star MGAs prove what Canada’s brokers have been signalling all year: they don’t want more MGAs; they want the right ones. The strongest performers combine deep technical underwriting expertise with genuine responsiveness, answering quickly, following through, and communicating clearly at every stage of a submission or claim.

Many of this year’s winners also built a defensible niche, whether that means specialty product knowledge, a willingness to underwrite risk the standard market has walked away from, or simply a level of comfort with complexity that few competitors can match.

Claims handling, still an untested relationship for many brokers, is emerging as the next real differentiator. As the Canadian MGA channel settles into a more mature phase, the MGAs earning broker trust are the ones treating service quality, not scale, as their defining advantage.