Is one fitness questionnaire suitable for all financial products?

The need for credit, insurance coverage and investment advice have different criteria. An investment service without personal recommendation must also be separated; the verification applied is selected according to the actual service.

How do you compare bids whose terms are not equivalent?

The common basis for comparison and the remaining important differences are shown. An unknown fee or incomparable protection exception must not be replaced by zero or hidden in a single total score.

How do you measure the quality of a consultation along with the sales results?

The assessment is whether the consultant compared suitable offers to the customer's need, retained the motives of the recommendation and performed agreed-upon service actions. Sales are additionally analyzed according to product, price and customer composition.

Can a comparison be called the best offer of the whole market?

It must be clear to the customer which partner products are compared and what type of consultation has been given. If only part of the proposals are evaluated, the recommendation is provided with this information.

Financial intermediary consultation and proposal management system

The consultant collects the client's needs, compares the partners' offers and saves the recommendation. The agreed follow-up and reviews remain visible to the team.

The request received does not have the express scope of the responsible consultant, service and other agreed action. The customer waits for a response or several employees repeatedly start the same conversation.

How the solution works

The request receives the responsible employee, the specific scope of service and the next action.
The basis for the customer's need and evaluation required for that service is collected.
Real partner options are matched against significant price, conditions and risk limits.
An authorized consultant makes a recommendation when it is part of a service and retains the basis for choice.
The agreed follow-up or review deadline is returned to the same customer's need.

Key challenges

Potential customers managed fragmentedly
The basis of the service and recommendation is unclear
Comparison of bids is done manually
Agreed client review remains without responsible action

Solution capabilities

Query Continuity

A recurring appeal is associated with an existing case, a responsible consultant, and a real term for the next action.

Service Boundaries

It is determined whether a consultation or other mediation service is provided and which verification applies to it.

Product criteria

For credit, insurance and investment, questions appropriate to their purpose and comparison attributes are used.

Differences in Proposals

The term, fees, exceptions, and other important terms remain visible with the original source and validity.

Basis of recommendation

The consultant compares the offers according to the needs of the customer and indicates which products have been evaluated. The remuneration paid by the partner must be handled transparently in accordance with the applicable terms of service.

A further review agreed

The need change and service term create a responsible action based on agreed service and communication basis.

Business context

Potential customers managed fragmentedly: The request received does not have the express scope of the responsible consultant, service and other agreed action. The customer waits for a response or several employees repeatedly start the same conversation.
The basis of the service and recommendation is unclear: There is no distinction between what service is provided and which client's data and criteria are required for a specific assessment. The recommendation is not explained or the client is given a conclusion that the facilitator had no reason to provide.
Comparison of bids is done manually: The price, term, fees, risks and exclusions of the partners are compared according to varying volume or outdated version of the offer. The cheaper-looking option may not satisfy the important customer condition, and the reason for the choice is not explained.
Agreed client review remains without responsible action: The term of service renewal or the customer's reported need change does not return to the consultant's workflow. No agreed-upon review has been made or a product that is no longer relevant is offered to the customer repeatedly.
Disparities in bids help make informed choices: The client needs to understand not only the price, but also the terms, conditions and suitability of a particular offer. The retained need and comparison allow the consultant to clearly justify the recommendation. An agreed subsequent review helps to continue the relationship when the client's circumstances change or the existing agreement ends.

Core features

Query Continuity
Service Boundaries
Product criteria
Differences in Proposals
Basis of recommendation
A further review agreed

Key integrations

Customer and Case Register: Inquiry, agreed service and previous significant need.
Partner Offer Sources: The terms, duration of the partner offer and the products to which it applies.
Proceedings of the documents and checks: Customer data suitable for evaluation and results of required checks.
Fee and service information: The client needs an explanation of the service and remuneration according to a specific model.

Potential impact (%)

The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.

Preparation of a reasonable comparison of proposals

12–36%Decreasing

This illustrative scenario assumes that 30-60% of manual data entry and handover work can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.

Active preparation is measured and an explanation is needed for the comparable customer need.

No agreed follow-up

5–25%Decreasing

This illustrative scenario assumes that 20-50% of missed actions can be identified through task and deadline tracking. That share is assumed to fall by 25-50%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.

Counts the actions agreed upon without a reasonable decision to miss, not just the frequency of all customer contacts.

Part of the negative feedback on the comparison of financial offers

5–20%Decreasing

Indicative assumption: 20-40% of negative reviews relate to unexplained differences in financial bids. The decision could reduce this share by 25-50%. This is a scenario of potential; assumptions need to be verified by feedback collected by the company.

When a company starts collecting reviews, negative reviews about comparing financial offers are counted from all the assessments received on the topic. The same method of assessment is applied before and after installation and similar customer groups are compared. Without initial data, the actual change is not determined.

Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.

When this solution is relevant

Several financial offers are compared to different prices, protections or other terms for the client.
The findings of the consultation and the agreed follow-up remain in the staff letters, making it difficult to continue service consistently.

Implementation requirements

The course of consultation defines the scope of service, customer demand data and the basis for comparing offers. Personal recommendation is separated from services without it, and questionnaires and checks are combined with product-specific requirements.