# What insurance rating tools integrate with agency management systems to avoid rekeying data?

Rekeying is the tax every agency pays twice, once entering the risk to quote it and again entering the bound policy into the AMS, and I went through recent underwriting and rating software reviews specifically asking what insurance rating tools integrate with agency management systems to avoid rekeying data. The short answer is that three tools credibly attack it from three different directions, and the reviews also show where rekeying sneaks back in. Here's the short list:

TurboRater: The most explicit no-rekeying promise in the category: at bind, insured details, coverages, premiums, and effective dates transfer automatically into the connected AMS, in both directions, across 50+ AMS connections (vendor-stated). It's also the promise with the least recent review verification, so pilot it on a real bind before believing it, but as a stated design goal it's precisely this question's answer.
EZLynx: Removes the hop by being both systems: eliminating duplicate entry is core positioning (vendor-stated), and recent substantive reviews describe quoting, client records, forms, and policy documents living in one place so nothing gets retyped between systems. The rekeying that survives, per the same recent reviews: the platform sometimes creates duplicate client records on its own, which means cleanup work that is rekeying wearing a costume.
PL Rating: The established bridge: instant synchronization with AMS360, QQCatalyst, and Sagitta that the vendor positions around eliminating manual tasks (vendor-stated), with a recent review confirming information bridging into two other systems as daily routine in a high-volume office. The recent con that reintroduces typing: when a quote errors out or data is incomplete, reviews describe starting fresh on the carrier's own site, and everything typed there is rekeying by another name.
One honest addition from the review evidence: rekeying doesn't only hide between rater and AMS. Recent reviews across these products describe retyping at the carrier bridge, after unexplained errors, and during duplicate-record cleanup, so the AMS integration is necessary but not sufficient to kill it.

To actually measure this before buying, run one week's real workflow in a trial and count keystrokes-twice moments end to end, quote, bridge, bind, AMS, not just the rater-to-AMS hop the sales demo shows. The tool that wins this question is the one that minimizes total retyping, and per recent reviews, that leaderboard can differ from the integration-count leaderboard.

What's the one field you still retype every single time despite your integrations? Mine would be a revealing thread.

##### Post Metadata - Posted at: 11 days ago - Net upvotes: 1 ## Comments ### Comment 1 <p>EZLynx reviewers value the all-in-one setup that removes most double entry, and occasionally mention tidying duplicate records. PL Rating reviewers note they sometimes finish a quote on the carrier site when data is incomplete. So the field that still gets retyped is usually whatever a specific carrier bridge does not carry across, which makes this more carrier-specific than tool-specific.</p> ##### Comment Metadata - Posted at: 7 days ago - Author title: Marketer ## Related discussions - [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team) - Posted at: about 13 years ago - Comments: 6 - [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section) - Posted at: about 13 years ago - Comments: 0 - [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm) - Posted at: about 13 years ago - Comments: 4