Bevaya alternatives
Ranked by how far your workflow sits from the standard one. That distance decides the answer more than any accuracy figure.
The verdict
Bevaya suits carriers and brokers whose submission, claims and policy servicing workflows look like the industry standard, a general document AI platform suits teams who want to assemble their own pipeline, and a custom build is right when the exception handling is the thing your business competes on.
Bevaya is the insurance AI agent platform from Roots Automation. It ships pre-built agents for submission intake, loss runs, FNOL setup, claims indexing, COI creation and premium audit work. Bevaya states 98%+ document extraction accuracy across 115+ workflows in production.
That is a strong fit when your process matches those shapes. Ask what happens to the documents that do not match. In insurance, the exceptions are rarely rare.
- Standard documentsACORDs, loss runs, COIs
- Standard workflowThe path most carriers follow
- Your exceptionsThe cases your team argues about
- Who handles themThe platform, or your people
- Where value sitsUsually in the exceptions
Buy when the first two dominate. Build when the third is what your customers pay for.
How we judged these
Verified
Everything stated about Bevaya comes from Bevaya's own site, read on 12 August 2026, including the accuracy and deployment figures. We have not run the platform, so this is evaluation rather than experience and the page says so.
The custom-build row is experience. We built PremiumAudit.io, an AI platform that runs the premium-audit lifecycle for Workers' Compensation, General Liability and Commercial Auto policies. That is the same document-heavy problem shape, approached from the other direction.
- Fit to your process
- How much of your workflow the option covers without changes on your side.
- Exception handling
- What happens to the documents and cases that fall outside the standard path.
- Time to something working
- How long before real documents are moving through it.
- What you own
- Whether the logic, the extraction rules and the audit trail are yours.
The field
| Option | Covers | Exceptions | You own |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bevaya (incumbent) | Standard insurance workflows, pre-built | Routed to your staff | Your data, not the agents |
| Document AI platform | Extraction only, any document type | Yours to design | The pipeline you build on it |
| Core system module | What your policy system already does | Handled as today | Nothing new |
| BPO with people | Anything, at human speed | Handled well, at cost | Nothing reusable |
| Custom build | Exactly your process | Designed in from the start | Code, rules and audit trail |
Ranked, by how standard your process is
Pre-built agents for standard insurance work
The fastest route when your work is submission intake, loss runs, claims indexing or COI creation done the usual way. The agents already exist. The platform sits on top of systems you run rather than replacing them, and Bevaya names Guidewire, Salesforce, Outlook, data warehouses, APIs and SFTP.
Judge it on your own documents rather than on a published accuracy figure. Extraction quality is specific to layouts, and the number that matters is how it performs on the carriers and brokers who actually send you paper.
Best for
- Carriers, brokers and TPAs with conventional document workflows
- Teams who want agents running without building a pipeline
- Work centred on ACORD forms and loss runs
Not for
- Processes where the exceptions are the competitive advantage
- Buyers who need to own the extraction logic themselves
- Stated accuracy
- 98%+ document extraction, per Bevaya
- Stated scale
- 115+ workflows in production, per Bevaya
- 02
A custom build on your own process
Your workflow, exceptions included
Right when the awkward cases are where your value sits. A policyholder chased for a missing payroll record. A classification dispute. A carrier whose loss runs arrive in a format nobody else uses.
PremiumAudit.io was built this way. Carriers, auditors and policyholders work from one shared record instead of trading spreadsheets. Each role gets its own view. The AI parses documents, validates figures and drafts reports inside that flow. A build takes longer to start than switching on a ready-made agent, and it pays back only where the process is genuinely yours.
Best for
- Workflows that do not match the industry standard shape
- Multi-party processes where each role needs a different view
- Teams who must own the audit trail and the rules
Not for
- Standard document extraction with no unusual handling
- Buyers who want something running this month
- 03
A general document AI platform
Extraction engine, pipeline is yours
A reasonable middle when you have engineers and want control without starting from nothing. You get extraction and sorting. You then design the routing, the review step and the exception path yourself.
The cost is that everything insurance-specific becomes your job. Nothing understands an ACORD form or a loss run until you teach it, which is exactly the work a specialist platform has already done.
Best for
- Teams with engineering capacity and unusual document types
- Organisations already standardised on one cloud provider
Not for
- Buyers with no engineering team to assemble the pipeline
- Standard insurance forms, where specialists start far ahead
- 04
Outsourcing to a BPO
People, not software
Still the right answer for volumes that spike unpredictably, or for a process changing so fast that automating it would mean rebuilding monthly. Humans handle exceptions without being taught.
What you never get is an asset. Every improvement stays with the provider, the cost scales with volume forever, and the process knowledge leaves when the contract does.
Best for
- Unpredictable spikes in document volume
- Processes still changing shape month to month
Not for
- Steady high volumes, where cost scales with every document
- Anyone who wants the process knowledge to stay in the business
Document-heavy insurance work, built around the exceptions
Common questions
01What does switching from a pre-built platform to a custom build cost in effort?
The extraction is the small part. The process rules are the large one. Expect to write down every sorting decision, exception route and approval step that now lives inside the platform or in someone's head. That is worth producing even if you stay, because any vendor needs it to quote you accurately.
02How should I test document extraction accuracy?
Test on your own hardest documents, not a vendor sample. Take a batch your team struggled with, score the results by hand, and check what happens to a document the system is unsure about. A platform that flags uncertainty is safer than one with a marginally better average.
03Why are the large core system vendors not ranked here?
A core policy or claims system answers a different question, which is where records live rather than how documents get processed into them. Both Bevaya and a custom build are designed to work alongside one, so this is rarely an either-or decision.
04Can a pre-built platform and a custom build coexist?
Yes, and it is often the sensible shape. Let a platform handle the standard high-volume documents, and build only the part where your process differs. Splitting by whether the work is standard keeps the build small and the risk contained.
