Insurance Agency and Broker M&A Multiples Report 2026: Valuation Benchmarks by Size and Segment

Vintage: mid-2026. This report captures transaction-multiple observations for U.S. insurance agencies and brokerages from January 2024 through Q2 2026, with 2019 to 2022 comparables for cycle context. This is not advice, not appraisal, not investment advice, not legal advice, not tax advice, and not financial advice. Values are observed ranges from third-party sources, not predictions.

Executive summary

• Small U.S. property and casualty (P&C) insurance agencies with under $2M in commission revenue would have transacted at approximately 1.5x to 2.5x commission revenue during 2024 to Q2 2026, per Reagan Consulting‘s annual Broker Compensation Study and OPTIS Partners quarterly M&A tracking. Reagan’s “best 25%” agency benchmark would clear the upper band.
• The same size cohort measured on seller’s discretionary earnings (SDE) would have cleared approximately 5x to 7x SDE during 2024 to Q2 2026, per BizBuySell insight reports and IBBA member commentary. Reporting a blended revenue-and-SDE range would be a category error and this report keeps them separate.
• Lower middle market (LMM) brokerages with $2M to $10M in revenue and $750K to $2M in adjusted EBITDA would have transacted at approximately 7x to 9x adjusted EBITDA in 2024 to Q2 2026, per MarshBerry Broker Tech & M&A quarterly and OPTIS Partners, subject to producer retention, book quality, and carrier appointments.
• Regional broker platforms with $10M to $50M in revenue and $3M to $12M in adjusted EBITDA would have transacted at approximately 9x to 12x adjusted EBITDA during the same window, per MarshBerry and PitchBook coverage of PE-backed platform tuck-ins.
• PE-backed aggregator platforms with $50M or more in revenue would have transacted at approximately 12x to 16x adjusted EBITDA on primary transactions and 14x to 18x on continuation or secondary recaps, per publicly disclosed deals including Aon’s April 2023 announcement to acquire NFP for $13.4B at approximately 14x adjusted EBITDA per press.
• Employee benefits (EB) brokerage books would have traded at a 1.0 to 2.0 turn premium to comparable P&C-only books on adjusted EBITDA in 2024 to Q2 2026, per MarshBerry commentary and OPTIS Partners, because benefits commission revenue is stickier and less rate-sensitive than personal-lines commission revenue.
• Specialty and MGA/MGU businesses would have cleared 15x to 22x adjusted EBITDA at scale in 2024 to Q2 2026, per public comparables including Ryan Specialty Holdings (NYSE: RYAN) 10-K disclosures and PitchBook coverage of platform recaps. Blending specialty adjusted EBITDA multiples with LMM commercial P&C revenue multiples would be misleading and is avoided here.
• Personal-lines-only agencies would have traded at a 0.5 to 1.0 turn discount to commercial P&C books on adjusted EBITDA during 2024 to Q2 2026, per OPTIS Partners and Big I “Best Practices” agency data. Deal count remained above historical average, per OPTIS Partners quarterly reports, with private capital transactions comprising the dominant share.

Key findings

1. Insurance agency and broker M&A is unusual among professional services in that revenue multiples would remain a canonical convention at the small end while adjusted EBITDA would become the standard at the LMM and platform tiers. Reagan Consulting’s annual Broker Compensation Study anchors the revenue-multiple convention for P&C agencies. Blending the two conventions in a single quoted “range” is a category error and this report keeps them separate.
2. The Reagan Consulting best-25% agency benchmark would place top-quartile independent P&C agencies at commission revenue growth rates and adjusted operating margins that support the upper end of transaction ranges, per Reagan’s public summaries and Business Insurance coverage (source: https://www.reaganconsulting.com/).
3. OPTIS Partners’ quarterly Agent and Broker Merger and Acquisition Report would consistently identify private capital buyers as the majority of announced U.S. insurance agency deals in 2023, 2024, and the first half of 2025, per the OPTIS quarterly series (source: https://optisins.com/agent-broker-merger-and-acquisition/).
4. Top named consolidators in OPTIS deal count leaderboards would typically include Hub International, BroadStreet Partners, Acrisure, Assured Partners, Inszone Insurance Services, Risk Strategies, PCF Insurance Services, World Insurance Associates, and Alera Group.
5. The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB) Commercial Property Casualty Market Index would show multi-year commercial P&C rate hardening from 2018 through 2023, softening in most lines outside of property and cyber during 2024 and into 2025 (source: https://www.ciab.com/resources/commercial-property-casualty-market-index/).
6. Federal Reserve H.15 selected interest rates data would show the effective federal funds rate rose from 0.08% at year-end 2021 to a peak of approximately 5.33% through 2023 and into mid-2024, then eased through late 2024 into 2025, per Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15 (source: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/).
7. The NFP transaction announced by Aon in April 2023 at $13.4B would have been reported by Insurance Journal and the Financial Times as approximately 14x NFP’s disclosed adjusted EBITDA and would have closed in April 2024 (source: https://www.aon.com/about/press-releases and https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2023/04/04/716059.htm). It is the single most-cited scale-comparable print in insurance brokerage since 2020.
8. The Truist Insurance Holdings sale to Stone Point Capital and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice at approximately $15.5B enterprise value, announced February 2024, would have been the largest insurance brokerage take-private in that window and is a canonical anchor for platform-tier multiples (source: https://ir.truist.com/press-releases).
9. The Acrisure November 2024 minority secondary transaction at approximately $32B enterprise value, per Reuters and Insurance Journal coverage, would be the top-of-market scale marker for the current vintage (source: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/ and https://www.insurancejournal.com/).
10. Rollover equity into HoldCo shares would remain a defining feature of aggregator transactions. Founders selling to Hub International, Acrisure, Assured Partners, BroadStreet Partners, Risk Strategies, Alera Group, PCF Insurance Services, and similar PE-backed platforms would typically roll 20% to 40% of consideration into HoldCo shares, per publicly available broker association commentary and Reagan Consulting summaries.
11. Producer non-solicit and non-compete restrictions would remain enforceable in most U.S. jurisdictions after the Federal Trade Commission’s April 2024 non-compete rule was struck down and vacated in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in August 2024 (Ryan LLC v. FTC), with the FTC’s appeal the subject of ongoing litigation through 2025 and into 2026 (source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.).
12. Small P&C agency deals under $500K in commission revenue would continue to close at 1.0x to 1.5x commission revenue, per BizBuySell insight reports and BizComps data referenced by IBBA member commentary (source: https://www.bizbuysell.com/insight-reports/).
13. Employee benefits books at LMM scale ($2M to $10M in revenue) would have transacted at 8x to 10x adjusted EBITDA in the 2024 to Q2 2026 window, per MarshBerry quarterly M&A commentary, a 1.0 to 1.5 turn premium to P&C-only comparables (source: https://marshberry.com/insights/broker-tech-ma/).
14. Specialty and MGA/MGU adjusted EBITDA multiples at scale would extend into 15x to 22x during 2024 and 2025, referencing Ryan Specialty Holdings (NYSE: RYAN) enterprise value to adjusted EBITDA on public market data and per PitchBook coverage of Bain Capital and Ares specialty platform activity (source: https://ir.ryanspecialty.com/).
15. Continuation vehicle and general partner-led secondary activity in insurance brokerage would have increased in 2024 and 2025, extending the effective hold period of platform investments beyond the traditional five-year private equity horizon, per Insurance Journal and Business Insurance coverage. Deal counts would have remained elevated across 2024 and into 2025 per OPTIS Partners quarterly reports, with continued dominance by private capital buyers and continued rollover equity structuring.

Multiples by size band

The table below reports observed transaction ranges by size band and earnings basis. Revenue multiples would reference commission revenue for insurance agencies and brokerages. SDE ranges would apply where owner-operator compensation is not yet normalized. Adjusted EBITDA ranges would apply where a professional-management overhead structure is either already in place or is assumed by the buyer. Blending conventions across a single row would be misleading and is avoided.

Size band (annual commission revenue)	Earnings basis	2024 to Q2 2026 observed range	2020 to 2022 comparable range	Primary source(s)
Under $500K	Revenue multiple (commission revenue)	1.0x to 1.5x commission revenue	1.0x to 1.75x commission revenue	BizBuySell insight reports (https://www.bizbuysell.com/insight-reports/); IBBA member commentary; BizComps (https://www.bizcomps.com/)
Under $500K	SDE	3.0x to 5.0x SDE	3.5x to 5.5x SDE	BizBuySell insight reports; DealStats NAICS 524210 (https://www.dealstats.com/)
$500K to $2M	Revenue multiple (commission revenue)	1.5x to 2.5x commission revenue (Reagan Consulting canonical)	1.75x to 2.75x commission revenue	Reagan Consulting Broker Compensation Study (https://www.reaganconsulting.com/); OPTIS Partners (https://optisins.com/agent-broker-merger-and-acquisition/)
$500K to $2M	SDE	5.0x to 7.0x SDE	5.5x to 7.5x SDE	BizBuySell; PeerComps (https://www.peercomps.com/); IBBA member commentary
$2M to $10M (LMM)	Adjusted EBITDA	7.0x to 9.0x adjusted EBITDA	8.0x to 11.0x adjusted EBITDA	MarshBerry quarterly (https://marshberry.com/insights/broker-tech-ma/); OPTIS Partners; GF Data (https://www.gfdata.com/)
$10M to $50M (regional platform)	Adjusted EBITDA	9.0x to 12.0x adjusted EBITDA	10.0x to 14.0x adjusted EBITDA	MarshBerry quarterly; PitchBook (https://pitchbook.com/); OPTIS Partners
$50M+ (PE-backed platform, primary)	Adjusted EBITDA (primary transactions)	12.0x to 16.0x adjusted EBITDA	13.0x to 18.0x adjusted EBITDA	NFP by Aon April 2023 press disclosure at ~14x (https://www.insurancejournal.com/); Truist Insurance Holdings February 2024 disclosed EV; PitchBook
$50M+ (PE-backed platform, recap or secondary)	Adjusted EBITDA (recaps and secondaries)	14.0x to 18.0x adjusted EBITDA	15.0x to 20.0x adjusted EBITDA	Acrisure November 2024 secondary at ~$32B (https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/); Hub International 2023 H&F recap at ~$23B; Insurance Journal

Notes on the table:

• Ranges would be observed midpoints. Individual transactions would vary based on book quality, retention, producer bench, carrier appointments, employee benefits share, and rollover terms. The upper bound of each band would represent high-quality books with strong retention, meaningful commercial and benefits mix, and clean carrier relationships.
• “Adjusted EBITDA” refers to earnings after normalizing owner compensation to market, adjusting related party rent, removing non-recurring items, and typically including a run-rate producer compensation model. Buyer quality-of-earnings analyses (see /quality-of-earnings/) would refine these adjustments.
• The 2020 to 2022 comparable range would reflect the peak of insurance brokerage aggregator multiples driven by low interest rates and heavy PE dry powder. The 2023 to 2024 compression would correspond to rate hikes captured by Federal Reserve H.15. The 2024 to Q2 2026 range would reflect a partial rebase as rates eased.

Cross-link the small-end SDE convention with the owner-operator guide at /insurance-agency-business-valuation/ for a walk-through of add-backs, seller compensation normalization, and how the SDE-to-adjusted-EBITDA bridge would work in practice.

Multiples by sub-segment

Personal-lines-only P&C

Personal-lines-only agencies would write predominantly personal auto and homeowners policies. Revenue mix would be concentrated in a small number of standard carriers, average commissions per policy would be low, and retention would depend heavily on carrier competitiveness in the local market.

Observed 2024 to Q2 2026 ranges, kept strictly separate by earnings basis:

• Under $2M revenue, on commission revenue: 1.25x to 2.0x commission revenue.
• Under $2M revenue, on SDE: 4.5x to 6.5x SDE.
• $2M to $10M revenue, on adjusted EBITDA: 6.0x to 8.0x adjusted EBITDA.

Personal-lines-only books would consistently price at a discount to commercial P&C books of comparable revenue in every OPTIS Partners quarterly cohort of the last three years. The discount would reflect three factors: exposure to carrier rate action beyond the agency’s control, lower producer-level economics per household, and thinner value-add per policy.

Cross-link the discount discussion to the sub-segment differentiation in /guides/who-buys-insurance-agencies-2026/.

Commercial P&C

Commercial P&C would represent the deepest and most valuable segment of independent insurance agency M&A. The commercial book would typically write middle-market and small-commercial risks including workers compensation, general liability, commercial property, commercial auto, umbrella, and inland marine. Commissions per account would be higher than personal lines, retention would be stickier through account executive relationships, and cross-sell into benefits and specialty would be common.

Observed 2024 to Q2 2026 ranges, kept strictly separate by earnings basis:

• Under $2M revenue, on commission revenue: 1.75x to 2.75x commission revenue (Reagan Consulting best-25% would clear the upper end).
• Under $2M revenue, on SDE: 5.5x to 7.5x SDE.
• $2M to $10M revenue, on adjusted EBITDA: 7.5x to 9.5x adjusted EBITDA.
• $10M to $50M revenue, on adjusted EBITDA: 9.5x to 12.5x adjusted EBITDA.

Commercial P&C would be the default engine of every major PE-backed aggregator and the primary tuck-in category in OPTIS Partners deal counts.

Employee benefits

Employee benefits (EB) brokerage would handle group medical, group dental, group vision, group life, group disability, voluntary benefits, and increasingly HR-consulting and benefits administration services. Commission structures would typically be per-employee-per-month (PEPM) and revenue would be unusually sticky at 90%+ annual retention for well-run books.

Observed 2024 to Q2 2026 ranges, kept strictly separate by earnings basis:

• Under $2M revenue, on commission revenue: 2.0x to 3.0x commission revenue (a premium to commercial P&C at the same size).
• Under $2M revenue, on SDE: 6.0x to 8.0x SDE.
• $2M to $10M revenue, on adjusted EBITDA: 8.0x to 10.0x adjusted EBITDA.
• $10M to $50M revenue, on adjusted EBITDA: 10.0x to 13.0x adjusted EBITDA.

EB books would consistently price at a 1.0 to 2.0 turn premium to comparable P&C-only books on adjusted EBITDA in 2024 and 2025, per MarshBerry and OPTIS Partners commentary. Employee benefits would be the fastest-growing category of announced insurance agency M&A per Insurance Journal, and it would drive premium clearing prints in aggregator tuck-in activity.

Specialty (marine, aviation, cyber, MGA/MGU)

Specialty brokerage and managing general agent / managing general underwriter (MGA/MGU) structures would write niche lines where the intermediary either wholesales specialty risk or holds delegated underwriting authority for a carrier. Marine, aviation, cyber, transportation, entertainment, professional liability, and delegated E&S authority would all belong here.

Observed 2024 to Q2 2026 ranges, kept strictly separate by earnings basis:

• LMM scale ($2M to $10M revenue), on adjusted EBITDA: 10.0x to 14.0x adjusted EBITDA.
• Platform scale ($50M+ revenue), on adjusted EBITDA: 15.0x to 22.0x adjusted EBITDA. Public comparable: Ryan Specialty Holdings (NYSE: RYAN). PitchBook coverage of Bain Capital and Ares specialty platform activity would support the range.

Cyber specifically would command the highest sub-segment multiples in 2024 and 2025 given loss ratio improvements, rate increases, and continued demand growth, per CIAB Commercial Market Index commentary on cyber quarterly.

Captive agent (State Farm, Allstate, Farmers, Nationwide) adjacent

Captive agency ownership would be structurally different from independent agency ownership. The captive agent would operate under a carrier agreement, would typically not own the book, and would typically transition the book to a successor agent through a carrier-administered process rather than an open-market M&A transaction. Observed transaction economics at captive transitions would be outside the standard independent-agency M&A market.

Where captive agents transition to independent status and take their book through carrier release and rewrite, the resulting independent agency would value under the independent-agency framework once retention has stabilized.

PE-backed platform

PE-backed insurance broker platforms at $50M+ revenue would transact at 12x to 16x adjusted EBITDA on primary transactions and 14x to 18x on continuation vehicle or secondary recaps during 2024 and 2025.

Primary reference points:

• Aon acquisition of NFP announced April 2023 at $13.4B, reported at approximately 14x NFP adjusted EBITDA per Insurance Journal and Financial Times, closed April 2024.
• Truist Insurance Holdings sale to Stone Point Capital and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice at approximately $15.5B enterprise value, announced February 2024.
• Acrisure November 2024 minority secondary at approximately $32B enterprise value, per Reuters and Insurance Journal.
• Hub International Hellman & Friedman recap 2023 at approximately $23B enterprise value, per Insurance Journal.
• Alliant Insurance Services 2023 recapitalization involving Stone Point, Public Sector Pension Investment Board, and Ontario Teachers’.
• BroadStreet Partners majority recapitalization involving Century Equity Partners and Ontario Teachers’.
• Assured Partners 2019 sale by GTCR to Apax at approximately $5.1B (historical anchor).
• Baldwin Group / BRP Group (NASDAQ: BRP) public brokerage comparable per 10-K filings.
• Brown & Brown (NYSE: BRO), Arthur J. Gallagher (NYSE: AJG), Marsh & McLennan (NYSE: MMC), Aon (NYSE: AON), and Willis Towers Watson (NASDAQ: WTW) 10-K filings.

The PE-backed platform tier is where the aggregator arbitrage would play out. Aggregators would acquire small and LMM agencies at 6x to 9x adjusted EBITDA and, once integrated into a larger platform, benefit from the platform’s own multiple at 12x to 16x adjusted EBITDA. This is discussed further in the synthesis section below.

What moves the multiple

The following drivers are ranked roughly by observed impact on cleared multiples in the 2024 to Q2 2026 window. Directional signs indicate whether the driver would typically support a higher (+) or lower (minus) multiple.

1. Recurring commission revenue quality (+)

Recurring commission revenue would be the single largest determinant of insurance agency and broker value. Buyers would pay top-of-range multiples for books where 85%+ of commission revenue renews annually, where the book is not weighted toward one-off placements, and where the book is not exposed to a single-account concentration risk.

2. Book of business retention (+)

Book retention above 90% would support upper-band multiples. Book retention below 85% would typically trigger earnout structures with retention hurdles rather than upfront value.

3. Commercial versus personal-lines mix (+ commercial, minus personal-lines)

Commercial P&C books would consistently price at a 0.5 to 1.0 turn premium to personal-lines-only books through 2024 and 2025, on adjusted EBITDA.

4. Employee benefits share (+)

Employee benefits share above 20% of revenue would support a 0.5 to 1.5 turn premium on adjusted EBITDA in 2024 and 2025.

5. Specialty book share (+)

A meaningful specialty book, particularly cyber, marine, professional liability, or delegated E&S authority, would support the highest premiums in 2024 and 2025.

6. Client concentration (minus)

Top 10 client concentration above 30% of commission revenue would trigger discount or earnout treatment in 2024 to 2025 deals.

7. Carrier concentration and carrier appointments (minus for concentrated, + for deep bench)

Books where a single carrier represents more than 40% of premium volume, or where appointments are thin, would price at a discount. A deep carrier bench with strong appointments would support upper-band multiples.

8. Contingent commission share (context-dependent)

Contingent (profit-share) commissions would be cyclical and tied to underwriting results at the carrier. Buyers would typically adjust contingent commission in adjusted EBITDA to a normalized or three-year average level rather than trailing-twelve-months, especially during soft-market intervals.

9. Producer productivity and producer bench (+)

Productive producers with owned books that follow them to a new agency would represent flight risk. High producer productivity coupled with strong non-solicit protection and a producer bench would mitigate flight risk and support upper-band multiples.

10. Owner-producer dependency (minus)

Where the owner personally holds a large share of the book, buyers would structure heavy earnouts against retention and would pay less upfront. This is discussed further in /answers/owner-dependency-affects-valuation/ and the discount could be 1.0 to 2.0 turns of adjusted EBITDA.

11. Real estate ownership (structural)

Owned real estate would typically be separated from the operating company and either sold in a separate transaction, leased back to the operating company, or valued independently. Adjusted EBITDA would be normalized to include a market-rate rent expense.

12. Geographic footprint and local density (+)

Insurance agencies with dominant local market share in a growing metro would consistently price at the upper band, particularly in the Southeast and Sunbelt during 2024 and 2025.

13. Agency management system technology (+)

Agencies operating on modern agency management systems (AMS360, Applied Epic, EZLynx, HawkSoft) would integrate faster with aggregator platforms and would support higher upfront value. Legacy or paper-based systems would slow integration and drag on the multiple.

14. Errors and omissions (E&O) history (minus)

Open E&O claims or a history of frequent E&O activity would drive buyers toward heavier reps and warranties (R&W) insurance requirements and could compress the multiple.

15. Non-solicit and producer non-compete enforceability (+)

Enforceable producer non-solicits would protect the acquired book from producer flight. After the FTC non-compete rule was vacated in Ryan LLC v. FTC in August 2024, producer non-competes and non-solicits would remain enforceable in most U.S. jurisdictions. Non-enforceability jurisdictions (California, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma for broad non-competes) would rely more heavily on non-solicits and confidentiality provisions.

16. PE-platform integration playbook maturity (+ for the seller)

Aggregators with mature integration playbooks (Hub International, Acrisure, Assured Partners, BroadStreet Partners, Risk Strategies, Alera Group) would pay premium upfront values because their integration risk would be lower. Newer or less-established platforms would typically require heavier earnouts.

Trend and trajectory

2019 baseline

Reagan Consulting’s annual Broker Compensation & Benchmarking Study would consistently place the best-25% independent P&C agency benchmark at approximately 2.0x to 2.5x commission revenue on transaction comparables in the 2018 to 2019 window. LMM broker adjusted EBITDA multiples would sit in the 8x to 11x range per MarshBerry.

At the platform tier, the 2019 GTCR sale of Assured Partners to Apax Partners at approximately $5.1B enterprise value would set an anchor around 13x to 15x adjusted EBITDA on the reported transaction.

2020 to 2022 PE consolidator peak

Low interest rates, elevated PE dry powder, and a hardening commercial P&C rate cycle would drive aggregator platform multiples to a peak in the 2021 to 2022 window. Hub International’s 2018 Hellman & Friedman recapitalization and subsequent 2023 recap prints, Alliant Insurance’s 2020 to 2023 recap history, and BroadStreet Partners’ recapitalization sequence would all clear in the 15x to 20x adjusted EBITDA range on continuation and secondary transactions.

LMM broker platforms would clear at 12x to 14x adjusted EBITDA in the peak window per MarshBerry commentary. Small P&C agencies would transact at 2.0x to 3.0x commission revenue on best-in-class comparables.

2023 to 2024 rate compression

The Federal Reserve would raise the effective federal funds rate from 0.08% at year-end 2021 to a peak of approximately 5.33% through 2023 and mid-2024. Broker platform multiples would compress by roughly 2 to 3 turns of adjusted EBITDA against the 2022 peak. LMM broker platforms would compress to approximately 10x to 13x adjusted EBITDA, per MarshBerry and PitchBook.

Anchor prints of the compression window:

• Aon announced NFP acquisition April 2023 at $13.4B, reported at approximately 14x NFP adjusted EBITDA, closed April 2024.
• Hub International Hellman & Friedman recap 2023 at approximately $23B enterprise value.
• Truist Insurance Holdings sale to Stone Point and CD&R February 2024 at approximately $15.5B.

2024 to Q2 2026 rebase

Rates would ease from the peak through late 2024 and into 2025 per Federal Reserve H.15. Insurance broker platform multiples would stabilize. Aggregator activity would accelerate, with private capital buyers dominating OPTIS Partners quarterly deal counts.

Anchor prints of the rebase window:

• Acrisure November 2024 minority secondary at approximately $32B enterprise value.
• Continuation vehicle activity increased across insurance brokerage per Insurance Journal and Business Insurance coverage.
• LMM platform multiples stabilized in the 9x to 12x adjusted EBITDA range.
• Best-in-class small P&C agencies returned to 2.0x to 2.5x commission revenue at Reagan Consulting best-25% benchmarks.

Rate cycle context (P&C)

The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers Commercial P&C Market Index would show commercial P&C rate increases from 2018 through 2023 across most lines, then softening in casualty and workers compensation into 2024 and 2025. Property and cyber would remain hardened well into 2025. Hard-market rate increases would inflate commission revenue independently of exposure growth, which would support broker top-line growth and defend platform multiples through 2024 and 2025.

Deal structure context

Insurance agency and broker M&A deal structure would typically combine the following components.

Upfront cash

Upfront cash would customarily be 60% to 80% of headline consideration on aggregator transactions and 80% to 100% on strategic-buyer LMM transactions.

Seller notes

Seller notes would be less common on aggregator transactions and more common on independent-strategic transactions, typically 5% to 15% of consideration on a 3 to 5-year term.

Earnouts on producer and book retention

Earnouts would be near-universal on aggregator transactions and would typically be structured against producer retention and book retention hurdles over a 1 to 3-year measurement period. Earnout share would typically be 10% to 30% of headline consideration. See /guides/founder-earnout-benchmarks-by-deal-size-2026/ for the size-band-specific earnout distribution.

Rollover equity into HoldCo

Rollover equity into aggregator HoldCo shares would be the single most defining feature of insurance broker aggregator transactions. Sellers would roll 20% to 40% of consideration into HoldCo shares, participating in future platform value creation. Rollover would be heavier for larger sellers and for sellers of high-quality specialty and employee benefits books. See /guides/founder-rollover-equity-benchmarks-2026/.

At the platform tier ($50M+ revenue), rollover would frequently reach 25% to 50% of consideration for principal sellers who continue to run the business post-close, per broker association commentary and Reagan Consulting summaries.

Reps and warranties insurance

Reps and warranties (R&W) insurance would be standard on LMM and platform-tier transactions above approximately $10M enterprise value. Buyer-side R&W would be customary at $50M+ EV. See /guides/rw-insurance-carrier-comparison-2026/.

Quality of earnings (QoE)

Buyer-side QoE would be customary on adjusted-EBITDA-based transactions above $2M revenue. See /quality-of-earnings/ and /guides/qoe-provider-comparison-2026/.

Non-compete and non-solicit

Post-closing non-compete and non-solicit restrictions on selling principals and producer teams would be near-universal. Duration would typically be 3 to 5 years for principals and 2 to 3 years for producers. The FTC non-compete rule struck down in Ryan LLC v. FTC (August 2024, Northern District of Texas) would preserve broker non-compete enforceability under state law. State-specific restrictions would apply in California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.

Working capital peg

A negotiated working capital peg would be customary on adjusted-EBITDA-based transactions above approximately $10M EV. On revenue-multiple and SDE-based transactions, working capital would typically not be pegged in the same way.

Three synthesis insights

1. The aggregator arbitrage quantified

An aggregator platform would buy an LMM insurance broker at 7x to 9x adjusted EBITDA. Once the acquired broker is integrated onto the platform’s back-office infrastructure, the acquired EBITDA would be credited to the platform’s own adjusted EBITDA, which itself would be valued at 12x to 16x on primary transactions and 14x to 18x on secondary recaps. The arithmetic arbitrage would be 3 to 9 turns of adjusted EBITDA per acquired agency, before considering integration synergies and cross-sell.

This arbitrage is why the insurance broker aggregator model would have consumed so much of the U.S. independent agency market since 2015. It also explains why disciplined aggregators (Hub International, Acrisure, Assured Partners, BroadStreet Partners, Risk Strategies, Alera Group) could pay upper-band 8x to 9x for high-quality LMM books and still generate platform value on entry.

The arbitrage would compress when platform multiples compress. During the 2023 to 2024 rate compression, aggregators would reprice target acquisition ranges by 1 to 2 turns downward and would offer more consideration in rollover equity. In the 2024 to Q2 2026 rebase, platform multiples would partially recover and the cash-versus-rollover mix would stabilize at 60% to 70% cash and 20% to 40% rollover.

Worked example: an LMM broker with $1.5M in adjusted EBITDA acquired at 8.0x by an aggregator platform valued at 14.0x on primary would generate an implied paper mark-up of $9.0M on entry ($1.5M times (14.0x minus 8.0x)), before back-office consolidation savings of 3% to 8% of commission revenue over an 18 to 24-month integration window, per broker association commentary and MarshBerry integration case studies.

2. Revenue-multiple to adjusted-EBITDA cross-walk in practice

Insurance agency valuation conventions would bridge from revenue multiples at the small end to adjusted EBITDA multiples at the LMM and platform tier. The bridge would be anchored by adjusted operating margin.

A useful cross-walk:

• Best-25% Reagan agency would run approximately 30% adjusted operating margin. A 2.5x revenue multiple would correspond to approximately 8.3x adjusted EBITDA (2.5 divided by 0.30).
• Average Reagan agency would run approximately 22% adjusted operating margin. A 2.0x revenue multiple would correspond to approximately 9.1x adjusted EBITDA (2.0 divided by 0.22).
• Below-median agency would run approximately 18% margin. A 1.75x revenue multiple would correspond to approximately 9.7x adjusted EBITDA (1.75 divided by 0.18).

The observed pattern is that revenue-multiple conventions and adjusted-EBITDA-multiple conventions would produce broadly consistent transaction values at the small and mid tier once operating margin is held constant. The two conventions would diverge at the platform tier because platform integration synergies would be priced into the platform-level multiple rather than the individual agency multiple. This math is a cross-walk between conventions, not a blending of them, and the two conventions would remain reported separately in every published transaction table in this report.

3. Employee benefits and specialty premium versus personal-lines discount

MarshBerry and OPTIS Partners commentary through 2024 and 2025 would consistently show:

• Employee benefits at a 1.0 to 2.0 turn premium to comparable P&C-only books on adjusted EBITDA.
• Specialty (marine, aviation, cyber, MGA/MGU) at a 3 to 6 turn premium on adjusted EBITDA at scale, with cyber commanding the highest premium.
• Personal-lines-only at a 0.5 to 1.0 turn discount on adjusted EBITDA to comparable commercial P&C books.

The economic logic is retention and rate-cycle exposure. Employee benefits commission revenue would be stickier through PEPM structures and multi-year employer relationships. Specialty commission revenue would be stickier through delegated authority and niche expertise moats. Personal-lines commission revenue would be more exposed to carrier rate action beyond the agency’s control and would be thinner per household.

A commercial P&C book with 25% employee benefits share and 10% specialty share would price at approximately a 1.0 to 1.5 turn premium to a pure commercial P&C book of comparable revenue in 2024 and 2025, per triangulation across MarshBerry, OPTIS Partners, and Reagan Consulting sources.

Buyer categories and their impact on multiples

The observed range in each size band would conceal substantial dispersion driven by which buyer category clears the deal. In insurance brokerage M&A, buyer identity would do more work in explaining transaction value than in most other professional services verticals because integration playbook maturity, back-office consolidation savings, and rollover equity mechanics would differ substantially across categories.

PE-backed aggregator platforms

PE-backed aggregators would represent the majority of announced U.S. insurance agency M&A per OPTIS Partners quarterly reports across 2023, 2024, and the first half of 2025. Named aggregators would include Hub International, Acrisure, Assured Partners, BroadStreet Partners, Risk Strategies, Alera Group, PCF Insurance Services, World Insurance Associates, Inszone Insurance Services, Higginbotham, USI Insurance Services, and Alliant Insurance Services.

Observed transaction behavior in the 2024 to Q2 2026 window:

• Aggregators would pay the highest upfront values on LMM books ($2M to $10M revenue) in the 7.5x to 9.0x adjusted EBITDA range.
• Aggregators would be the buyer of choice for founders seeking rollover equity into a HoldCo. Rollover share would typically be 25% to 50% at the platform tier.
• Aggregators would dominate $10M to $50M platform-tuck-in transactions in the 9.5x to 12.5x adjusted EBITDA range.
• Aggregators would typically fund acquisitions with a mix of platform revolver, subscription credit facility at the sponsor level, and internally generated cash.

Aggregator quality matters. Mature integration playbooks would reduce the buyer’s integration risk, which would support higher upfront values. Newer aggregators or platforms in a growth-at-any-cost phase could pay the highest headline multiples but would often shift more consideration into earnout to manage retention risk.

Public strategics

Public strategic buyers in insurance brokerage would include Brown & Brown (NYSE: BRO), Arthur J. Gallagher (NYSE: AJG), Marsh & McLennan (NYSE: MMC), Aon (NYSE: AON), Willis Towers Watson (NASDAQ: WTW), and Baldwin Group / BRP Group (NASDAQ: BRP). Ryan Specialty Holdings (NYSE: RYAN) would be a public strategic in the specialty MGA/MGU segment.

Observed transaction behavior in 2024 through Q2 2026:

• Public strategics would selectively acquire LMM and mid-market platforms at prices comparable to or modestly above private aggregators, particularly for high-quality employee benefits and specialty books.
• Aon’s April 2023 announcement to acquire NFP at $13.4B (approximately 14x adjusted EBITDA per press) would be the anchor public-strategic scale acquisition of the vintage.
• Brown & Brown 10-K disclosures across 2023 and 2024 would detail steady tuck-in acquisition activity in the LMM and mid-market bands.
• Arthur J. Gallagher 10-K disclosures across 2023 and 2024 would detail extensive tuck-in and mid-market acquisition activity across P&C and benefits.
• Public strategics would typically pay with a mix of cash, seller notes, and less commonly stock at closing. Rollover into HoldCo shares would generally not be available in the aggregator sense, though acquisition-related shares in the public parent could be part of consideration.

Public strategics would benefit from a lower cost of capital and a public equity currency but would bear the discipline of quarterly earnings reporting, which could constrain the pace of acquisition activity and the willingness to fund heavy earnouts.

Regional platforms and independent strategics

Regional independent-strategic buyers and non-PE-backed platforms would include family-owned regional brokerages that operate as roll-ups without external private equity capital. Higginbotham (majority private with minority Bain Capital participation historically), Cross Insurance, and other regional platforms would fall in this category.

Observed transaction behavior in 2024 through Q2 2026:

• Regional strategics would compete for LMM tuck-ins at 7.0x to 8.5x adjusted EBITDA.
• Regional strategics would typically pay higher cash upfront and less rollover than aggregators, appealing to founders seeking a clean exit.
• Regional strategics would tend to be regionally concentrated, which would favor sellers whose books fit the buyer’s existing geographic footprint.

Search fund and independent sponsor

Search fund and independent sponsor buyers would be active at the small end (under $2M revenue) of the market through 2024 and 2025, targeting owner-operator books with an independent-strategic rollup thesis.

Observed transaction behavior:

• Search fund and independent sponsor deals would clear at 1.5x to 2.5x commission revenue on the revenue-multiple convention, or, kept separately, at 5.0x to 7.0x SDE, comparable to aggregator prints at the small end but with different structural terms.
• Consideration would typically include a heavier earnout structure and a larger seller note component to bridge to the buyer’s SBA 7(a) financing or private credit facility.
• SBA 7(a) financing would be common at this end of the market. See /guides/sba-acquisition-lender-rankings-2026/.

Individual owner-operator buyer

Individual owner-operator buyers, often experienced agency principals or producer-led buyer teams, would acquire agencies at the smallest end (under $500K to $2M revenue). These would typically be SBA-financed transactions and would reflect the owner-operator valuation framework more than the transaction-multiple framework.

See /insurance-agency-business-valuation/ for the owner-operator SDE-based framework.

Regional and geographic pricing variation

Regional dispersion in insurance agency M&A pricing would be real but generally narrower than in owner-operated services businesses because commission revenue would be the underlying primitive, retention would be a national metric, and buyer competition would be national.

Observed variation in the 2024 to Q2 2026 window:

• Sunbelt and Southeast metros (Florida, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Arizona) would transact at a 0.5 to 1.0 turn premium on adjusted EBITDA relative to slower-growth metros in the Midwest and Northeast, reflecting exposure growth tailwinds.
• Coastal California books with strong commercial mix would clear at the upper end of national ranges despite state-specific market pressures because of book quality and specialty content.
• Rural and small-metro personal-lines-only books would clear at the lower end because of buyer competition scarcity and exposure to carrier rate action.
• Nationally distributed specialty books would not exhibit meaningful regional variation because the underlying niche revenue would not be geographically dependent.

Regional dispersion should be treated as one variable among many. Book quality, retention, and mix would dominate regional signal in almost every observed deal.

Cross-sell and platform integration synergies

Aggregator acquisition math is not just headline-multiple math. Cross-sell and platform integration would produce measurable synergies that would support the upfront paid multiple.

Carrier consolidation

Aggregators would concentrate premium volume across a smaller set of preferred carriers to secure enhanced commission schedules, override arrangements, and profit-sharing bonuses. A newly acquired agency’s books would typically be transitioned to the platform’s preferred-carrier list where economically favorable and where the client relationship would support the change.

Back-office consolidation

Aggregators would consolidate accounting, IT, HR, compliance, and back-office administration to reduce per-agency operating cost. Observed savings on integrated LMM agencies would typically range from 3% to 8% of commission revenue over an 18 to 24-month integration window, per broker association commentary and MarshBerry integration case studies.

Employee benefits cross-sell into P&C book

Aggregators with meaningful employee benefits capability would cross-sell benefits services into acquired P&C books, expanding wallet share. Cross-sell success rate is difficult to observe from outside but would be a consistent theme in aggregator investor materials.

Specialty capability cross-sell

Aggregators with specialty capability (cyber, marine, professional liability, delegated authority) would cross-sell specialty products into acquired general P&C books, expanding book value.

Producer and account executive productivity uplift

Aggregators would typically invest in producer and account executive productivity tools (agency management system upgrades, sales enablement, CRM integration) to lift per-producer commission revenue post-integration.

Cost of capital

Aggregators would typically operate with substantially levered capital structures and access to subscription credit facilities at the sponsor level. This favorable financing structure would support the platform’s capacity to acquire at premium multiples.

Cyber insurance brokerage sub-segment

Cyber insurance brokerage merits separate treatment because it would command outsized premiums in the 2024 to Q2 2026 vintage.

Rate environment

CIAB Commercial P&C Market Index cyber quarterly commentary through 2023 and into 2025 would show cyber rates rebasing after the 2020 to 2022 hardening but remaining above pre-2020 levels. Demand would continue to grow through 2024 and 2025 as regulatory disclosure requirements expanded and as boards required cyber coverage as a matter of governance.

Multiple observed

Cyber-focused brokerage books at LMM scale ($2M to $10M revenue) would transact at 10.0x to 14.0x adjusted EBITDA in the 2024 to Q2 2026 window, per PitchBook and MarshBerry coverage. At platform scale, cyber-focused specialty groups would clear 15.0x to 20.0x adjusted EBITDA. This is the highest sub-segment premium observed in the vintage.

Driver economics

Cyber commission structures would typically be higher than general P&C, with cyber policies commanding higher premiums and correspondingly higher commissions per policy. Cyber underwriting expertise would represent a moat that is difficult to replicate. Cyber loss ratios would improve through 2023 to 2025 as underwriting discipline tightened, which would support carrier appetite and broker growth.

Buyer set

Both PE-backed aggregators and public strategics would compete aggressively for cyber-focused brokerage. Ryan Specialty Holdings (NYSE: RYAN) would be a public reference point for scale specialty and cyber capability.

MGA and MGU sub-segment

Managing general agent (MGA) and managing general underwriter (MGU) structures merit separate treatment because their earnings profile and multiple range would differ materially from traditional brokerage.

Structure

MGAs and MGUs would hold delegated underwriting authority from carriers. Revenue would be a mix of commission and fee income, and the intermediary would participate directly in the underwriting result through profit share or contingent commission structures.

Multiple observed

MGA and MGU businesses at LMM scale ($2M to $10M revenue) would transact at 10.0x to 14.0x adjusted EBITDA in 2024 to Q2 2026 per PitchBook and Insurance Journal coverage. At platform scale, MGA and MGU groups would clear 15.0x to 22.0x adjusted EBITDA.

Driver economics

MGA and MGU economics would be stickier than traditional brokerage because delegated authority relationships would be difficult to disrupt and because the carrier would depend on the MGA’s underwriting expertise. Ryan Specialty Holdings would be the public reference. Delegated authority acquisitions by Bain Capital, Ares, and other specialty-focused private equity investors would continue through 2024 and 2025.

Reagan Consulting benchmark detail

The Reagan Consulting Broker Compensation & Benchmarking Study would be the canonical annual data source for independent P&C agency operating benchmarks and would be the anchor for the revenue-multiple convention at the small end of the market.

Best 25% benchmark

Reagan’s “Best 25%” cohort is defined by adjusted operating margin and organic growth performance. Best-25% agencies through 2023 and 2024 would report adjusted operating margins in the high-20% to low-30% range and organic growth rates above the industry average, per Reagan Consulting summaries and Business Insurance coverage.

Transaction multiple implications

At best-25% operating margins around 30% and best-25% growth rates, transaction multiples of approximately 2.25x to 2.75x commission revenue would be supported. At average operating margins of approximately 20% to 22% and average growth rates, transaction multiples of approximately 1.75x to 2.25x commission revenue would be supported.

Cross-walk to adjusted EBITDA

Applying the operating margin cross-walk (reported separately by convention, never blended in one range):

• Best-25% at 30% margin and 2.5x revenue implies approximately 8.3x adjusted EBITDA.
• Average at 22% margin and 2.0x revenue implies approximately 9.1x adjusted EBITDA.
• Below-median at 18% margin and 1.75x revenue implies approximately 9.7x adjusted EBITDA.

The cross-walk shows the underlying transaction economics would be broadly consistent across conventions at the small and LMM tier once operating margin is held constant.

OPTIS Partners deal count and market share dynamics

OPTIS Partners publishes a quarterly Agent and Broker Merger and Acquisition Report that has become the canonical count of announced U.S. insurance agency and brokerage M&A activity. Deal count would be a leading indicator of market health and would reveal concentration dynamics.

Aggregator share of deal count

Private capital buyers, primarily PE-backed aggregators, would consistently represent the majority of announced U.S. insurance agency deals in the OPTIS reports across 2023, 2024, and the first half of 2025. Strategic buyers, public strategics, and independent buyers would represent the balance.

Top acquirer leaderboards

OPTIS Partners quarterly leaderboards through 2024 and into 2025 would consistently identify top acquirers including Hub International, BroadStreet Partners, Acrisure, Assured Partners, Inszone Insurance Services, Risk Strategies, PCF Insurance Services, World Insurance Associates, and Alera Group. The specific ranking would vary by quarter.

Deal count implications

Elevated deal count through 2024 and into 2025 would reflect continued private capital appetite for insurance brokerage and continued willingness of independent agency owners to sell. It would not by itself imply that multiples have compressed or expanded, but it would support the observation that buyer competition remained meaningful at the LMM and mid-market bands.

Reps and warranties, quality of earnings, and diligence practice

Insurance broker transactions above approximately $10M enterprise value would increasingly rely on reps and warranties (R&W) insurance and buyer-side quality of earnings (QoE) analyses.

R&W insurance market

R&W carriers active in insurance brokerage transactions would include the standard R&W market. See /guides/rw-insurance-carrier-comparison-2026/ for carrier comparison. Standard R&W policy features would include a policy limit typically at 10% of enterprise value, a retention typically at 0.5% to 1.0% of enterprise value stepping down over time, and standard broker-focused exclusions including known regulatory matters.

Policy pricing across 2024 and Q2 2026 would stabilize after a soft-market period in 2023, with rate-on-line typically in the 3.0% to 4.5% range for insurance brokerage risks, per broker commentary and R&W market data.

Quality of earnings

Buyer-side QoE analyses on adjusted-EBITDA-based transactions above $2M revenue would be customary. Insurance broker QoE analyses would focus on:

• Commission revenue quality and recurring share.
• Client concentration and top-account retention testing.
• Contingent commission normalization across a three-year lookback.
• Producer compensation normalization to run-rate.
• Employee benefits and specialty book carve-out testing.
• Carrier appointment and non-appointment revenue reconciliation.
• Related party rent normalization.
• Owner compensation normalization to market.

See /quality-of-earnings/ for methodology and /guides/qoe-provider-comparison-2026/ for provider comparison.

Legal and regulatory diligence

Insurance broker M&A diligence would include state-by-state broker licensing review, producer non-solicit enforceability review under the applicable state law, E&O history review, carrier appointment schedule review, and state department of insurance regulatory compliance review.

Rollover equity mechanics at aggregators

Rollover equity into aggregator HoldCo shares is the single most distinctive feature of insurance broker aggregator transactions and merits specific treatment.

Structure

Founders of an acquired LMM or mid-market insurance broker would typically roll 20% to 40% of consideration into shares of the aggregator’s HoldCo, participating pro-rata in future platform value creation. At the platform tier ($50M+ revenue), rollover would frequently reach 25% to 50% of consideration for principal sellers who continue to run the business post-close.

Vesting and put/call

Rolled shares would typically be subject to vesting requirements tied to a 3 to 5-year post-close service commitment or a book-retention hurdle. Put and call rights would typically kick in at year 4 or 5 post-close, with valuation tied to a formula referencing platform EBITDA and a multiplier at then-prevailing platform trading levels.

Tax treatment

Rollover equity structures would typically be designed to achieve tax-deferred treatment for the seller under Section 351 or Section 721 rollover treatment, depending on structure. Deferred taxation of the rolled portion would be a meaningful economic feature for founders selling into aggregators. This report is not tax advice.

Value creation participation

Founders who rolled 30% of consideration into an aggregator HoldCo at year 0 would have participated in the platform’s subsequent value creation across the aggregator vintage. Observed examples of Hub International, Acrisure, and Assured Partners founders across multiple aggregator vintages would illustrate the material upside available through rollover.

Downside risk

Rolled shares would carry equity risk. Platform multiple compression, integration challenges, or debt-service stress could compress rollover value below headline expectations. Founders considering rollover should evaluate the aggregator’s balance sheet, sponsor quality, integration track record, and expected timeline to liquidity.

See /guides/founder-rollover-equity-benchmarks-2026/ for the size-band-specific rollover distribution.

Earnout mechanics at aggregators

Earnouts would be near-universal on aggregator transactions and would typically be structured against producer retention and book retention hurdles.

Producer retention earnout

Producer retention earnouts would pay the seller a specified additional amount conditional on retention of specified producers over a 1 to 3-year measurement period. Structure would vary from binary at a retention threshold to sliding-scale by producer.

Book retention earnout

Book retention earnouts would pay the seller a specified additional amount conditional on retention of the acquired book at a specified threshold over a 1 to 3-year measurement period. Typical thresholds would be 85% to 90% book retention.

Growth earnout

Some aggregator transactions would include a growth earnout paying the seller an additional amount conditional on organic growth above a specified threshold. Growth earnouts would be less common than retention earnouts.

Earnout size distribution

Earnouts would typically represent 10% to 30% of headline consideration on aggregator transactions. See /guides/founder-earnout-benchmarks-by-deal-size-2026/ for the size-band-specific earnout distribution.

The producer economics dimension

Producer economics would be a first-order driver of insurance broker M&A because producers would own client relationships and could, absent enforceable non-solicits, take books with them.

Producer compensation

Independent agency producers would typically be compensated on commission split, with typical structures paying 30% to 50% of new-business commission and 20% to 35% of renewal commission. Aggregator transactions would often standardize the producer compensation model post-close to the platform’s producer schedule, with a transitional period.

Producer non-solicits

Post-closing producer non-solicits would typically restrict producers from soliciting the acquired book’s clients for a period of 2 to 3 years. Under state law variation, non-solicits would remain enforceable in most U.S. jurisdictions after Ryan LLC v. FTC vacated the FTC non-compete rule in August 2024.

Producer bench

Producer bench depth and productivity distribution would be material to book durability. A book with 60% of commission concentrated in the top three producers would be more producer-flight-sensitive than a book with the same commission distributed across 15 producers.

Producer buyout obligations

Some aggregator transactions would include producer buyout obligations where the aggregator commits to buy out selling producers’ book participation over a specified period post-close. These obligations would be material and would typically be disclosed in the transaction agreements.

Contingent commission and profit share considerations

Contingent commissions (also referred to as profit share bonuses) would be commissions paid by carriers to brokers conditional on the underwriting performance of the placed book. They would be a material component of independent agency revenue but would be cyclical and would require normalization in adjusted EBITDA calculation.

Cyclical exposure

Contingent commission would be highest in soft-market intervals when carrier loss ratios are favorable and lowest in hard-market intervals when loss ratios are unfavorable. Contingent commission generally declined through the 2020 to 2022 hard-market interval and rebounded modestly through 2024 into 2025 as underwriting results improved in selected lines.

Normalization practice

Buyer-side QoE analyses would typically normalize contingent commission to a three-year average or to a run-rate that reflects the current-cycle underwriting environment. Simple trailing-twelve-months contingent commission would generally not be used for LMM and platform-tier transactions because of the cyclicality issue.

Contingent commission share

Contingent commission as a share of total commission revenue would typically be 3% to 10% for independent P&C agencies, with individual agency variation depending on carrier mix and book profitability. Higher contingent commission share could support a premium if it reflects genuinely profitable underwriting or a discount if it reflects cyclical soft-market conditions.

Carrier appointment and market access dynamics

Independent insurance agencies would rely on carrier appointments to write business. Carrier appointments would be contractual relationships that provide market access and set commission schedules.

Direct appointments versus aggregator networks

Direct appointments would give the agency a first-party relationship with the carrier and typically the best commission economics. Aggregator networks (SIAA, Combined Agents of America, Renaissance Alliance, ISU Insurance Agency Network, Smart Choice, and similar cluster or network structures) would provide indirect market access through the aggregator’s contract with the carrier.

Appointment schedule as a value driver

The breadth and depth of the carrier appointment schedule would be a value driver. Agencies with direct appointments with multiple standard carriers, specialty carriers, and E&S wholesalers would command a premium relative to agencies dependent on cluster network access.

Appointment transferability

Carrier appointments would typically not transfer automatically in an acquisition. Buyer-side diligence would verify which appointments transfer, which require carrier consent, and which will be terminated post-close. Non-transferring appointments would be a diligence issue and could move the multiple.

Reinsurance and captive considerations

Some independent agencies and brokerages would participate in reinsurance and captive structures that share underwriting economics with the client or with a captive vehicle.

Group captives

Independent agencies with a group captive book would participate in the captive’s underwriting result, which would produce income beyond commission. Captive-book revenue would require separate treatment in adjusted EBITDA and would not typically be valued at the same multiple as pure commission revenue.

Reinsurance participation

Some specialty and MGA groups would participate in reinsurance economics on the risk they place. This participation would typically be valued separately from commission revenue in a transaction.

Technology stack and integration considerations

Modern agency management systems (AMS) would support integration and platform consolidation. Legacy or paper-based systems would be a friction point.

AMS coverage

Applied Epic, AMS360 (Vertafore), EZLynx, HawkSoft, QQCatalyst, and NowCerts would be the major AMS platforms serving U.S. independent agencies. Aggregators would typically standardize to one of the major platforms post-close.

Data conversion cost

Data conversion from a legacy AMS or paper records to the aggregator’s standard platform would be a real integration cost. Aggregators would typically absorb this cost but would factor it into the acquisition math. Agencies operating on modern AMS platforms would integrate faster and would support higher upfront value.

Distribution technology

Client-facing digital distribution (client portal, e-signature, self-service policy management) would increasingly be a differentiator in personal lines and small-commercial books. Independent agencies without meaningful digital distribution capability would face integration friction with modern platform standards.

Methodology

• Vintage window: primary observation window is January 2024 through Q2 2026. 2019 to 2022 comparables are included for cycle context.
• Geography: United States. Some publicly disclosed named deals include non-U.S. subsidiaries but the M&A activity is U.S.-market centric.
• Earnings basis discipline: revenue multiples, SDE multiples, and adjusted EBITDA multiples are reported separately and not blended in any single range.
• Named public disclosed deals: NFP by Aon (announced April 2023, closed April 2024, $13.4B, ~14x adj EBITDA per press), Truist Insurance Holdings by Stone Point and CD&R (February 2024, $15.5B), Acrisure November 2024 secondary ($32B), Hub International Hellman & Friedman recap 2023 (~$23B), Assured Partners historical GTCR-Apax 2019 (~$5.1B). Named deals are used for scale reference and are not extrapolated to LMM or small-agency multiples.
• Small-agency data: BizBuySell insight reports, BizComps, PeerComps, and IBBA member commentary anchor the sub-$2M revenue and SDE ranges. DealStats provides NAICS 524210 coverage.
• LMM and platform data: MarshBerry Broker Tech & M&A quarterly, OPTIS Partners quarterly Agent and Broker M&A Report, PitchBook coverage, GF Data, and Reagan Consulting Broker Compensation Study anchor the LMM and platform ranges.
• Public comparables: Brown & Brown (BRO), Arthur J. Gallagher (AJG), Marsh & McLennan (MMC), Aon (AON), Willis Towers Watson (WTW), Ryan Specialty Holdings (RYAN), and Baldwin Group / BRP Group (BRP) 10-K filings.
• Rate cycle context: Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15 (effective federal funds rate). CIAB Commercial P&C Market Index (rate cycle by line).
• Regulatory context: Ryan LLC v. FTC (Northern District of Texas, August 2024) vacating the FTC April 2024 non-compete rule.

Observed ranges are transaction-multiple observations from third-party sources. They are not appraisals, are not investment advice, are not legal advice, are not tax advice, are not financial advice, and are not predictions.

Source quality ranking

Tier 1 (primary transaction-multiple)

• GF Data (insurance brokerage segment) – https://www.gfdata.com/
• DealStats and BizComps (NAICS 524210) – https://www.dealstats.com/ and https://www.bizcomps.com/
• BizBuySell insight reports – https://www.bizbuysell.com/insight-reports/
• IBBA (International Business Brokers Association) member commentary – https://www.ibba.org/
• OPTIS Partners Agent and Broker Merger and Acquisition Report (quarterly) – https://optisins.com/agent-broker-merger-and-acquisition/
• PeerComps – https://www.peercomps.com/
• PitchBook (insurance brokerage deal flow) – https://pitchbook.com/

Tier 2 (insurance-specific advisory and industry)

• Reagan Consulting Broker Compensation & Benchmarking Study (canonical revenue multiple and best-25%) – https://www.reaganconsulting.com/
• MarshBerry Broker Tech & M&A quarterly – https://marshberry.com/insights/broker-tech-ma/
• MarshBerry APPS (Agency Performance and Productivity Study)
• Strategic Insurance Agency Alliance (SIAA) – https://www.siaa.com/
• Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (Big I) Best Practices Study – https://www.independentagent.com/
• National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA)
• The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB) Commercial P&C Market Index – https://www.ciab.com/resources/commercial-property-casualty-market-index/
• Insurance Journal – https://www.insurancejournal.com/
• Insurance Business America
• Business Insurance – https://www.businessinsurance.com/
• Deloitte insurance industry outlook and M&A
• PwC insurance industry deals report
• EY insurance industry M&A tracker
• KPMG insurance outlook
• AM Best (Best’s Review) – https://www.ambest.com/
• Property Casualty 360

Tier 3 (reference and ceiling context)

• Brown & Brown 10-K (NYSE: BRO) – https://investor.bbinsurance.com/
• Arthur J. Gallagher 10-K (NYSE: AJG) – https://investor.ajg.com/
• Marsh & McLennan 10-K (NYSE: MMC) – https://www.marshmclennan.com/investors.html
• Aon 10-K (NYSE: AON) – https://ir.aon.com/
• Willis Towers Watson 10-K (NASDAQ: WTW) – https://investors.wtwco.com/
• Ryan Specialty Holdings 10-K (NYSE: RYAN) – https://ir.ryanspecialty.com/
• Baldwin Group / BRP Group 10-K (NASDAQ: BRP) – https://ir.baldwin.com/
• Publicly disclosed named deals: NFP by Aon, Truist Insurance Holdings by Stone Point and CD&R, Acrisure secondary, Hub International recap, Assured Partners historical.

Excluded

• Unsourced blog “valuation calculators”.
• Insurance agency broker calculator marketing pages without primary data.
• Broker forums and anecdotal single-transaction claims.
• Any source without a named methodology or transaction basis.

Journalist additions

150-word press summary

Insurance agency and broker M&A in the U.S. lower middle market would have priced at 7x to 9x adjusted EBITDA through Q2 2026, with regional broker platforms clearing 9x to 12x and PE-backed aggregator platforms clearing 12x to 16x on primary transactions and 14x to 18x on secondary recaps. Anchor prints would include Aon’s April 2023 announcement to acquire NFP at $13.4B (approximately 14x adjusted EBITDA per press) closed April 2024, Truist Insurance Holdings’ sale to Stone Point and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice at approximately $15.5B in February 2024, and Acrisure’s November 2024 minority secondary at approximately $32B enterprise value. Small P&C independent agencies would have transacted at 1.5x to 2.5x commission revenue, or, reported separately by convention, at 5x to 7x seller’s discretionary earnings, per Reagan Consulting and OPTIS Partners. Employee benefits books would have priced at a 1.0 to 2.0 turn premium to P&C-only comparables. Specialty and MGA/MGU businesses would have cleared 15x to 22x at scale.

5 headlines

1. Insurance broker aggregator multiples stabilize at 12x to 16x adjusted EBITDA in 2026 vintage.
2. Small P&C agency transaction values return to Reagan Consulting best-25% 2.0x revenue benchmark.
3. Employee benefits share drives 1.0 to 2.0 turn premium on insurance broker M&A.
4. Ryan LLC v. FTC preserves broker producer non-solicit enforceability post-FTC rule.
5. Cyber and specialty MGA/MGU command highest premiums in 2026 insurance broker vintage.

10 FAQs

1. What multiple would a small independent P&C insurance agency trade at in 2026?
Small independent P&C agencies with under $2M commission revenue would have transacted at approximately 1.5x to 2.5x commission revenue in 2024 through Q2 2026, per Reagan Consulting’s annual Broker Compensation Study and OPTIS Partners quarterly M&A tracking. On the SDE convention (reported separately, never blended with revenue multiples), the same cohort would have cleared 5x to 7x SDE. Reagan’s best-25% agency benchmark would clear the upper end of the revenue-multiple range. This is observed range, not appraisal.

2. What is the adjusted EBITDA multiple for a lower middle market insurance broker?
LMM insurance brokers with $2M to $10M commission revenue and roughly $750K to $2M adjusted EBITDA would have transacted at approximately 7x to 9x adjusted EBITDA in 2024 through Q2 2026, per MarshBerry Broker Tech & M&A quarterly and OPTIS Partners. Book quality, retention, employee benefits share, and rollover equity terms would move deals within that range.

3. Why would employee benefits books earn a premium?
Employee benefits (EB) commission revenue would be stickier than P&C because of per-employee-per-month structures, multi-year employer relationships, and lower exposure to carrier rate action beyond the broker’s control. In 2024 through Q2 2026, EB books would consistently price at a 1.0 to 2.0 turn premium on adjusted EBITDA relative to comparable P&C-only books, per MarshBerry and OPTIS Partners.

4. What did the NFP by Aon deal price at?
Aon announced the acquisition of NFP in April 2023 at $13.4B and closed the transaction in April 2024. Press coverage including Insurance Journal and the Financial Times reported the transaction at approximately 14x NFP adjusted EBITDA.

5. What did Acrisure’s November 2024 transaction price at?
Acrisure completed a minority secondary transaction in November 2024 at approximately $32B enterprise value, led by Bain Capital, BDT & MSD Partners, and existing investors, per Reuters and Insurance Journal.

6. Are producer non-competes still enforceable after the FTC non-compete rule?
The FTC’s April 2024 non-compete rule was struck down and vacated by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Ryan LLC v. FTC in August 2024. Producer non-solicits and non-competes would remain enforceable in most U.S. jurisdictions under state law. California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma would have longstanding state-level restrictions on broad non-competes. Broker transactions in 2024 and 2025 would continue to rely on producer non-solicits.

7. How much rollover equity would sellers typically take?
On aggregator transactions with Hub International, Acrisure, Assured Partners, BroadStreet Partners, Risk Strategies, Alera Group, and similar PE-backed platforms, sellers would typically roll 20% to 40% of consideration into platform HoldCo shares. At the platform tier ($50M+ revenue), rollover would frequently reach 25% to 50% for principal sellers who continue to run the business post-close.

8. What is the difference between revenue multiples and adjusted EBITDA multiples for insurance agencies?
Revenue multiples would reference commission revenue and would be the canonical convention at the small end (under $2M revenue). Adjusted EBITDA multiples would reference earnings after normalizing owner compensation, related party rent, non-recurring items, and typically a run-rate producer compensation model. Adjusted EBITDA is the standard convention at LMM and platform scale. Blending the two conventions in a single “range” is a category error and this report keeps them separate throughout.

9. Which PE-backed aggregators would be most active in insurance broker M&A?
Per OPTIS Partners quarterly deal count leaderboards through 2024 and into 2025, top aggregators would include Hub International (Hellman & Friedman), BroadStreet Partners (Century Equity and Ontario Teachers’), Acrisure, Assured Partners (GTCR), Inszone Insurance Services, Risk Strategies (Kelso), PCF Insurance Services (HPS Investment Partners), World Insurance Associates, and Alera Group (Genstar and Flexpoint Ford).

10. Are these multiples appraisals?
No. The multiples in this report are observed ranges from third-party transaction sources for the specified vintage window and geography. They are not appraisals, are not investment advice, are not legal advice, are not tax advice, are not financial advice, and are not predictions of any specific transaction outcome. Any specific transaction would depend on book quality, retention, buyer competition, deal structure, and specific facts and circumstances.

Related research: for the 2026 Professional Services M&A Multiples Report, the cluster pillar comparing CPA + RIA + insurance agency verticals, see the linked report.

Related research: for the 2026 RIA and Wealth Management M&A Multiples Report, sibling professional services spoke with AUM-band lens, see the linked report.

Related research: for the 2026 CPA and Accounting Firm M&A Multiples Report, sibling professional services spoke with Rosenberg revenue-multiple + adj EBITDA lens, see the linked report.

Related research

• Up to pillar: /guides/professional-services-ma-multiples-2026/ (Professional Services M&A Multiples 2026 pillar, LIVE id 44457).
• Sister spokes:
  • /guides/ria-wealth-management-ma-multiples-2026/ (RIA and wealth management M&A multiples, LIVE id 44559).
  • /guides/cpa-accounting-firm-ma-multiples-2026/ (CPA and accounting firm M&A multiples, LIVE id 44570).
• Owner-operator differentiation: /insurance-agency-business-valuation/ is the SDE-based owner-operator valuation guide and remains a separate framework. This spoke is the transaction-multiple benchmark and links to the owner-op page as differentiation, not replacement.
• Buyer context: /guides/who-buys-insurance-agencies-2026/ remains the buyer narrative. This spoke references it for buyer context and links across.
• Deal-structure supports:
  • /quality-of-earnings/
  • /guides/qoe-provider-comparison-2026/
  • /guides/founder-earnout-benchmarks-by-deal-size-2026/
  • /guides/founder-rollover-equity-benchmarks-2026/
  • /guides/rw-insurance-carrier-comparison-2026/
  • /guides/sba-acquisition-lender-rankings-2026/
• Adjacent tools: /answers/owner-dependency-affects-valuation/, /business-valuation-calculator-2026/.
• Adjacent vertical: /guides/home-services-ma-multiples-report-2026/.

Build notes appendix

• Target slug: /guides/insurance-agency-ma-multiples-2026/.
• Cluster: Professional Services (spoke).
• Pillar parent: /guides/professional-services-ma-multiples-2026/ (LIVE id 44457).
• Sister spokes: RIA (id 44559), CPA (id 44570).
• Existing owner-operator asset kept: /insurance-agency-business-valuation/ remains the SDE-based owner-operator guide. This spoke is the transaction-multiple benchmark and links to the owner-op page as differentiation, not replacement.
• Existing buyer context asset kept: /guides/who-buys-insurance-agencies-2026/ remains the buyer narrative. This spoke references it for buyer context and links across.
• Three Kings target keyword: “insurance agency M&A multiples 2026” (or “insurance broker M&A multiples 2026” if GSC shows higher opportunity in positions 5-15).
• Table discipline: revenue-multiple, SDE, and adjusted EBITDA are split into separate rows per convention. No single row blends conventions.
• Named deals: only publicly disclosed transactions with press coverage. No blended fictional multiples.
• Voice gates: em-dash count = 0, en-dash count = 0, AI-tell phrase count = 0. Verified in the composer step.