The Most Competitively Priced Life Insurers in Australia (2026): Arrow Equities' Monthly Panel Ranking

Written by Christopher Hall, AdvDipFP | Authorised Representative, AFSL 526688 | Updated October 2026

As at October 2026, the most competitively priced life insurer across Arrow Equities' representative occupation profiles was Zurich, which led all five occupations for a third consecutive month. Encompass was second, and MetLife and OnePath tied for third. This page ranks the insurers on the Arrow Equities panel by how consistently each was the most competitively priced for a full package of life, TPD, income protection and trauma cover across five representative occupations — an electrician, a nurse, a carer, a sales assistant and a teacher — each priced on a standardised profile. Here, "best" means most competitively priced on our panel for these profiles — it is not a verdict on policy quality: the most suitable insurer for an individual depends on their health, occupation, cover needs, and the policy definitions and benefit periods, which matter as much as price. The figures come from comparisons Christopher Hall, AdvDipFP, Authorised Representative, AFSL 526688, ran across the panel using adviser quotation software. This ranking is rebuilt every month as pricing changes. It is an illustrative benchmark across the Arrow Equities panel — not personal advice, and not a whole-of-market comparison of every insurer in Australia.

The ranking — October 2026

Across the five representative occupations priced this month, the insurers that finished in the top three in at least two occupations are ranked below (lowest average score = most consistently the most competitively priced). Each insurer's occupation pages are linked so the underlying figures can be checked.

Zurich was the most competitively priced insurer for all five occupations in October 2026 — the electrician, nurse, carer, sales assistant and teacher — giving it a perfect average of 1.00. That is its third consecutive clean sweep, and this month it led at all three ages on every occupation as well as at the age-40 profile this ranking uses.

This is the first movement in this table in four months — and no insurer's price caused it

Encompass moves from equal-fourth to second, and MetLife and OnePath from equal-second to equal-third. It would be easy to read that as the market moving. It is not. Across 55 quotes — eleven insurers against five occupation profiles — 13 of the 15 occupation-and-age cells came back identical to the cent to September, and every figure behind Zurich's clean sweep was unchanged.

What changed is the method. From October 2026 a quote whose income protection reduces part-way through a claim is reported but not ranked, on the same basis that a quote on a shorter benefit period has been excluded since June: both are a smaller promise at a lower price, and a price ranking that compares unequal cover is worth less than a shorter one that does not.

Two of the eleven panel insurers are affected, and the page says which and why below. The practical consequence is that nine insurers were scored on a like-for-like basis this month instead of eleven, Encompass inherits third place in three occupations it did not previously hold, and that lifts it to four top-three finishes — enough to separate it from MetLife and OnePath on the first tie-break.

Why Encompass is second on the same average as the insurers ranked third

All three scored 3.20. The tie-break for this ranking is (a) more top-three finishes, then (b) better single result, then (c) the lower total of full-package premiums across the occupations where both insurers are quoted. Level (a) settles it: Encompass finished in the top three in four occupations against two each for MetLife and OnePath. A fourth-place average can be reached either by a couple of strong results or by placing consistently; this ranking is built to reward the second, and this is that case.

MetLife and OnePath remain a genuine tie and are published as one — for the second consecutive month. Both scored 3.20 with two top-three finishes and a best result of second: MetLife second for the electrician and the teacher, OnePath second for the nurse and the sales assistant. Level (a) and level (b) are identical. Level (c) still cannot operate, because the two insurers placed on no occupation in common — MetLife on the teacher and electrician, OnePath on the nurse and sales assistant — so there is nothing to total. Awarding one of them a higher position would mean inventing a rule after seeing the result.

(One honest limitation on Encompass's second place: it was not quoted on the sales assistant at the age-40 profile this ranking uses, so it scores an equal-fourth 4 for that occupation. Had it been quoted and placed, its average would be lower still, not higher. The gap understates it rather than flattering it.)

Movement since June 2026:

⚠ The October column is not directly comparable with the four before it, and this page will not pretend otherwise. June to September ranked eleven insurers; October ranks nine on a like-for-like basis. Encompass's two-place rise and MetLife's and OnePath's one-place fall are the arithmetic of that change, not of anyone's pricing. The earlier columns are left exactly as published rather than restated, so the series stays auditable — but a reader comparing October with September is comparing two different ranked sets.

NEOS remains outside the ranked set, again holding a single third — this month for the sales assistant at age 40 — a reminder that a ranked position rests on two finishes and can be lost by one. It did place second for the sales assistant at age 50, displacing Futura, but this ranking is built on the age-40 profile.

The two quotes that are reported but not scored this month

Both exclusions are about what the cover does, not about the insurer. A benefit that steps down part-way through a claim, and a benefit that stops sooner, are both legitimate products that genuinely suit some people — they are simply not the same promise as the one every other quote in this table is priced on. Where an insurer's cover differs, its quote is reported and the difference is stated, rather than ranked as though it were identical.

A correction affecting the August figures above, made on 10 September 2026 and left visible. August's third place for the teacher profile was an *Encompass quote struck on its health-discounted Healthy Life variant, which this comparison's standardised profile excludes. It was identified when the September re-quote returned that variant at a figure identical to August's, line for line, while the standard-rate quote differed. Encompass's August score therefore rests on one input that should not have been ranked. September's placing does not* — it is third for the teacher on standard rates at $129.71, and the same variant is now excluded on every occupation, on the same basis as AIA's discount stack. The August standard-rate figure cannot be recovered after the fact, so the August column is left as published, with this note attached rather than a silent restatement.

The remaining panel insurers were quoted for every occupation but have not yet finished in the top three of at least two occupations, so they are listed without a ranked position — they are still scored, and can enter the ranking as pricing changes:

Acenda scored 3.60 — a better average than two of the three insurers ranked above it on points alone — but is not given a ranked position, because that average rests on a single second place (the carer, at all three ages) rather than two top-three finishes. That is the gate working as intended: a ranked position is meant to reflect consistency across occupations, not one strong result.

AIA is scored on standard terms and does not place. Quoted with its full discount stack applied — AIA Vitality with Healthier Lives and Health & Life, plus a PRSG3 discount — it would have been the most competitively priced quote on the board for the teacher and electrician at ages 40 and 50. Those figures are not eligible for this ranking, because the standardised profile excludes health-based discounts so that insurers are compared on the same terms. They are set out on the occupation pages. Across the twelve profile-and-age combinations priced this month, the discounted quote reached the top only on those two lightest occupation classes and only from age 40 — it was dearer than the ranked leader at age 30 on every occupation, and dearer at every age on the carer.

Futura is the eleventh panel insurer, scored from August. In October it again reached second for the sales assistant at age 50 but not on the age-40 profile this ranking uses, so it scores 4.00 for a third month. Arrow Equities does not yet hold its Product Disclosure Statement, so nothing is said here about how its cover compares — only where its price landed.

The ranking is an age-40 ranking — and the leader can change with age

Every figure above is priced on a 40-year-old in each occupation, held constant so the insurers are comparable. From August 2026 the occupation pages also carry ages 30 and 50, and those quotes show the order is not fixed across the age range.

On the electrician profile, ClearView was the most competitively priced at age 30 ($151.42 a month) while Zurich led at 40 ($173.90) and 50 ($417.36). On the carer, sales assistant and teacher profiles Zurich led at all three ages. So a single occupation in five reordered at the youngest age — enough to show the effect is real, not enough to call it common.

What that means for a reader. A ranking of this kind answers "who was most competitively priced for this profile, at this age, this month" — it is not a statement about which insurer is cheapest for any given person. Age, occupation, state, health history and cover structure all move the answer, and the age evidence above is a concrete demonstration rather than a caveat. The only way to know which insurer is currently most competitive for a particular individual is a fresh comparison on their actual circumstances.

A score of 4.00 means an insurer was not in any occupation's top three this month — not that it is uncompetitive in general; a different profile, or next month's repricing, can move any insurer up the list.

How the ranking is built

The method is deliberately simple and transparent, so the result can be reproduced from the occupation pages:

1. For each occupation, the eleven panel insurers are quoted on the same standardised profile (age 40, non-smoker, $100,000 income; $1,000,000 life, $1,000,000 any-occupation TPD, $5,800/month income protection on a 5-year benefit period, $100,000 trauma), and ranked by full-package monthly price.

2. Each insurer scores its finishing position: 1st = 1 point, 2nd = 2, 3rd = 3, and any insurer not in that occupation's top three = 4 points (equal-fourth).

3. Points are averaged across all occupations. The lowest average is the most consistently competitively priced, and takes first place. Ties are broken by (a) the number of top-three finishes, then (b) best single result, then (c) the lower total of full-package premiums across the occupations where both insurers are quoted. Level (c) was added on 11 September 2026, after two pairs finished level on (a) and (b) in two consecutive months — and it was decided and written down before being applied, so that no rule could be shaped around a result already known.

4. Income-protection quotes are only ranked like-for-like on the same benefit period; a quote on a shorter benefit period is set aside, not ranked (a shorter benefit period is cheaper because it pays for less time).

5. A ranking is published for a month once at least five occupations are in the base — the current minimum. This month's base is five; adding more occupations strengthens it.

6. An insurer is given a ranked position only once it has finished in the top three in at least two occupations. This prevents a single strong result on one profile from creating a headline rank. Insurers with fewer than two top-three finishes are still scored, and listed separately as not yet consistently ranked.

The occupation base grows over time — it currently stands at five profiles (the minimum), so the ranking will become more robust as more occupations are added, and the scores will shift as insurers reprice.

What two months of almost no movement actually tells you

Across 55 quotes in October 2026 — eleven insurers against five occupation profiles — 13 of the 15 occupation-and-age cells came back identical to the cent to September. Not the totals: the individual cover lines. Zurich did not move a single cent on any occupation at any age, and nor did MetLife, Acenda or ClearView. September was the first completely static month since this ranking began in June; October is the second, on price.

Two insurers did reprice, and both did it in a shape worth recording.

• NEOS lifted the sales assistant profile's life cover, TPD and trauma by almost exactly 8.1% each and left income protection completely unchanged at $76.89. Because Queensland duty is charged on income protection and trauma, and only trauma moved of those two, its duty line is unchanged as well.

• AIA closed a large amount of ground on the carer at age 40 with its full discount stack applied — from $88.94 above the leader in August to $32.92 in October, a $56.02 improvement in two months while the leader did not move at all. It still does not place on standard terms.

The clearest measurement in the series is still September's, and it contradicts how repricing is usually described. A rate change is not a single across-the-board percentage. MetLife lifted the 40-year-old teacher 4.5% ($122.79 to $128.37) and the 50-year-old electrician 5.1% ($438.98 to $461.16), while leaving the 40-year-old electrician identical to the cent — and in both cells that moved, the whole increase sat in life cover and TPD, both up about 11.1%, with income protection and trauma untouched. Premium rates are set cell by cell across a matrix of age band, sex, occupation class, cover type, definition and sum insured, and an insurer can move two cells and leave the neighbouring one alone on the same morning. NEOS's October change has the same signature: three covers moved by one factor, the fourth not at all.

The five-month series, on the same profiles and the same method:

(The insurers-scored column is new, and it is there because it changed: from October a quote whose income protection reduces part-way through a claim is reported rather than ranked, so two of the eleven are no longer scored. The leader's figures are unaffected — Zurich's clean sweep is on identical premiums — but the set it leads is smaller.)

A static month is a result, not an absence of one. It says the panel's pricing held steady through the period for these profiles — useful to anyone already holding cover with one of these insurers — and it gives the months that do move something to be measured against. A ranking that only gets published when it changes is a ranking that overstates how often things change.

Why the order moves at all — and why this is re-run monthly

The most common question this table raises is why a ranking of the same eleven insurers on the same profiles should reorder from month to month at all.

Every insurer is adjusting its own pricing curve continuously, and on its own timetable. Each is managing the balance of its own insured pool across age bands, occupation classes and cover types, and each moves when its own claims experience and exposure tell it to — not in step with anyone else. A comparison run on any single date is therefore a snapshot of eleven separate curves caught mid-movement. The order can change without any insurer having done anything unusual, and it can hold still for a month, as it did in September and again on price in October, without the market having stopped.

Profitability is part of why this works in a policyholder's favour, and it is worth saying plainly. Insurers need to be profitable. Where they are not, insurers leave the market, competition thins, and the prices everyone pays rise. A panel of eleven insurers repricing against each other is the mechanism that keeps a comparison like this one worth running — the competition is the thing producing the differences this table measures.

What it means for a policyholder is narrower than the table suggests. A policy bought when its insurer led on price does not stay on the leading price, and nothing re-prices it automatically. That is the mechanism behind the loyalty tax that accumulates on long-held cover, and the reason a premium review is worth running periodically rather than once.

Three situations this table is often used to answer

"My insurer is ranked fifth. Should I move?" Not on this table alone. A ranked position is a price observation on five representative profiles at age 40 — it is not a verdict on an individual policy, which was priced on a different age, a different health history and possibly a different definition. What the ranking does tell a fifth-placed policyholder is that a comparison is worth running; what it cannot tell them is the answer. Whether moving is even possible depends on health, because health determines whether cover is portable at all.

"A colleague says their insurer is the cheapest." It may well have been — for their age, their occupation, their state and the date they bought. Christopher Hall's answer to which insurer is best is that it depends on age, occupation, risk category, level of cover and state, and that the answer changes month to month, which is why the comparison is re-run rather than assumed. A recommendation inherited from a colleague is a quote struck against someone else's circumstances on a date that has passed.

"The same insurer has led every month. Is this ranking useful?" More so than if it changed constantly. Zurich has led five consecutive months and swept all five occupations in the last three — which is itself the finding, and one no monthly snapshot could produce. The movement worth watching is behind the leader, where in September the gap between first and second on the teacher profile widened from $4.28 to $9.86 without the leader moving at all, and in October the second, third and fourth positions reordered while every leading price stood still.

What "best" means on this page

Arrow Equities does not name any insurer as the "best" in a quality sense. Two insurers can offer very different definitions, benefit periods and features at a similar price, and the right choice depends on an individual's circumstances. This ranking answers a narrower, factual question: across our panel and our representative profiles, which insurer was most competitively priced, and how consistently? It is a starting point for a conversation, not a recommendation — and because it reflects the Arrow Equities panel rather than every insurer in the market, it is not a whole-of-market comparison.

The occupations behind the ranking

Each occupation is priced and updated on its own page, where the full per-cover and per-insurer breakdown is shown:

• Electrician — most competitive: Zurich → life insurance cost for an electrician

• Nurse — most competitive: Zurich → life insurance cost for a nurse

• Carer — most competitive: Zurich → life insurance cost for a carer

• Sales assistant (retail) — most competitive: Zurich → life insurance cost for a sales assistant

• Teacher — most competitive: Zurich → life insurance cost for a teacher

The same quotes, read the other way. This page holds the occupation constant and compares insurers. Reading the identical dataset with the insurer held constant and the occupation varying gives a different and equally measurable answer — what life insurance costs by occupation, where a carer's TPD priced at exactly twice a teacher's and income protection at 2.42 times, while life cover and trauma cover priced identically to the cent for both.

A full insurance premium review compares an individual's actual cover against the same panel.

How this ranking differs from a comparison website

This is not a directory of every insurer, and it is not driven by which insurer pays the most to be listed. It is built from actual standardised adviser quotes across the Arrow Equities panel, run on the same representative profiles each month, and ranked purely on full-package price. That makes it repeatable and occupation-specific, but also narrower than a whole-of-market comparison — it covers the eleven insurers Arrow Equities advises across, not the entire market. Pricing is one input into suitable cover; definitions, benefit periods, health and structure are the rest, which is where advice comes in.

How this comparison was run

The figures are illustrative comparisons for the standardised profiles described above, quoted on 14 October 2026 using adviser quotation software across the panel. Bundle discounts were applied where available; no health, platform, preferred-adviser or couples discounts were applied, and no individual underwriting loadings are reflected. Premiums are stepped, and income protection is compared on a five-year, non-reducing benefit — from October 2026 a quote on a shorter benefit period, or on a benefit that reduces part-way through a claim, is reported but not scored, so nine of the eleven panel insurers were ranked this month. Stamp duty differs by state and by insurer domicile, so the five occupation totals behind this ranking are not directly comparable with each other; the ranking compares insurers within each occupation, which is unaffected. Insurance pricing changes regularly and every individual's circumstances differ, so this ranking is a benchmark across our panel, not a quote or a recommendation for any individual. To compare insurers on an actual profile, speak to an adviser today →.

Frequently asked questions

Which life insurer is the most competitively priced in Australia?

Across Arrow Equities' panel and its five representative occupation profiles, Zurich was the most competitively priced insurer as at September 2026, ahead of OnePath and MetLife. This reflects a full package of life, TPD, income protection and trauma cover on standardised profiles across the ten-insurer panel — not a whole-of-market comparison, and not a verdict on policy quality. The ranking is updated monthly.

Who is the best life insurer in Australia?

There is no single "best" life insurer — two insurers can offer very different definitions, benefit periods and features at a similar price, so suitability depends on the individual. If "best" is taken to mean most competitively priced across Arrow Equities' panel for our representative profiles, that was Zurich in October 2026, with Encompass next and MetLife and OnePath tied third. The most suitable insurer for a particular person is best identified with an adviser.

What is the best life insurance company in Australia?

Arrow Equities does not rank any company as "best" on quality. On price, across our panel and representative occupations, Zurich was the most competitively priced in October 2026, for a third consecutive month. Which company suits an individual depends on their health, occupation, cover needs and the policy definitions — price is only one factor.

How is this life insurer ranking calculated?

Each month the eleven panel insurers are quoted on the same standardised profile for each occupation and ranked by full-package price. An insurer scores 1 for a first place, 2 for second, 3 for third, and 4 if it is not in that occupation's top three. The points are averaged across all occupations, and the lowest average ranks first (ties broken by the number of top-three finishes). A ranking is published once at least five occupations are priced, and an insurer is given a ranked position only after it has finished in the top three in at least two occupations — insurers below that are still scored but listed separately.

Does this ranking cover all life insurers in Australia?

No. It covers the insurers on the Arrow Equities panel (AIA, TAL, Acenda, Zurich, MetLife, OnePath, NEOS, PPS, ClearView and Encompass). It is not a whole-of-market comparison of every insurer available in Australia.

How many life insurers are on the Arrow Equities panel?

Ten: AIA, TAL, Acenda, Zurich, MetLife, OnePath, NEOS, PPS, ClearView and Encompass. Each is quoted on the same standardised profiles that build this ranking.

How often is the life insurer ranking updated?

It is rebuilt every month, and re-calculated each time an occupation page is updated with fresh quotes. The last update within a calendar month becomes that month's recorded ranking, so the figures always reflect current pricing.

Is the cheapest life insurer the best one?

Not necessarily. Price matters, but so do the policy definitions (for example own-occupation versus any-occupation TPD), the income-protection waiting and benefit periods, and an individual's health. The cheapest full-package price for a standardised profile is a useful benchmark, not a complete assessment of suitability.

Which life insurer is best for an electrician?

For the representative electrician profile, Zurich was the most competitively priced on the panel. The full per-cover and per-insurer breakdown is on the life insurance cost for an electrician page. A different profile can change the result.

Which life insurer is best for a nurse?

For the representative nurse profile, Zurich was the most competitively priced on the panel. See the life insurance cost for a nurse page for the breakdown.

Which life insurer is best for a carer?

For the representative carer profile, Zurich was the most competitively priced on the panel. See the life insurance cost for a carer page.

Which life insurer is best for a retail worker or sales assistant?

For the representative sales assistant (retail) profile, Zurich was the most competitively priced on the panel. See the life insurance cost for a sales assistant page.

Which life insurer is best for a teacher?

For the representative teacher profile, MetLife was the most competitively priced on a like-for-like basis, with NEOS next. See the life insurance cost for a teacher page.

What is the best life insurer for an SMSF?

This ranking prices cover held in a standard super account, not a self-managed super fund (SMSF). Life and TPD cover can be held in an SMSF, and pricing is often similar but can differ by insurer and structure. The most competitively priced insurer for an SMSF depends on the specific arrangement — an adviser or SMSF specialist can confirm it.

How do you compare life insurers in Australia?

A like-for-like comparison holds everything constant except the insurer — the same cover amounts, the same income-protection waiting and benefit periods, and the same occupation and health assumptions — then ranks on price. Price is only part of the picture; definitions, benefit periods and how cover is structured across super and personal ownership matter as much. An adviser can run the comparison on an individual's actual details.

Why do life insurer rankings change each month?

Insurers reprice their products through the year, and stepped premiums rise with age, so the most competitively priced insurer can change month to month. Adding more occupation profiles also refines the ranking. That is why this page is rebuilt monthly rather than fixed.

Is Zurich the best life insurer in Australia?

Zurich was the most competitively priced insurer across Arrow Equities' panel and representative occupations in October 2026 — leading all five profiles, a third consecutive clean sweep. That is a price observation across our panel, not a quality verdict, and it can change with a different profile or next month's pricing.

What does most competitively priced mean?

It means the lowest total monthly premium for the same standardised package of life, TPD, income protection and trauma cover, quoted across the panel on the same profile and date. It is a price measure only — it does not rate the quality of an insurer's policy definitions or service.

Does the ranking include income protection and TPD?

Yes. Each insurer is priced on a full package — $1,000,000 life, $1,000,000 any-occupation TPD, $5,800/month income protection (5-year benefit period) and $100,000 trauma — so the ranking reflects the whole package, not life cover alone.

Can I get a personalised comparison of life insurers?

Yes. The ranking here is built on standardised profiles; an adviser can run a current comparison across the panel on an individual's actual age, income, occupation and health. Speak to an adviser to compare on a real profile.

Did the life insurer ranking change in October 2026?

Yes — positions moved, but no insurer's price caused it. Encompass rose from equal-fourth to second, and MetLife and OnePath moved from equal-second to equal-third. On price the month was almost completely static: 13 of the 15 occupation-and-age cells came back identical to the cent to September, and Zurich led all five occupations for a third consecutive month at an average of 1.00 on unchanged premiums. What changed is the method — from October 2026 a quote whose income protection reduces part-way through a claim is reported but not ranked, on the same basis a shorter benefit period has been excluded since June, so nine insurers were scored on a like-for-like basis instead of eleven. Encompass inherited third place in three occupations as a result, giving it four top-three finishes against two each for MetLife and OnePath.

Why do insurers reprice some customers and not others?

Because premium rates are set cell by cell across a matrix of age band, sex, occupation class, cover type, definition and sum insured — not as a single across-the-board percentage. In September 2026 one panel insurer lifted the 40-year-old teacher profile 4.5% and the 50-year-old electrician profile 5.1% while leaving the 40-year-old electrician identical to the cent, on the same day. In both cells that moved, the whole increase sat in life cover and TPD, both about 11.1%, with income protection and trauma untouched.

My insurer is ranked fifth — should I switch?

Not on this ranking alone. A ranked position is a price observation on five representative profiles at age 40; it is not a verdict on an individual policy, which was priced on a different age, health history and possibly a different definition. What a fifth-place ranking indicates is that a comparison is worth running. Whether switching is even possible depends on health, because health is what determines whether cover can be moved at all.

What happens if two insurers tie in this ranking?

They are published as ties unless a stated rule separates them. Ties are broken by the number of top-three finishes, then by best single result, then by the lower total of full-package premiums across the occupations where both insurers are quoted. That third level was added on 11 September 2026 after two pairs finished level on the first two tests in two consecutive months, and it was written down before being applied so that no rule could be shaped around a result already known.

Where can I see what each occupation actually pays?

Each occupation has its own page carrying the full per-insurer, per-cover breakdown, updated monthly — the five are listed above. Reading the same 14 October 2026 quotes across occupations rather than down them answers a different question: an electrician's any-occupation TPD priced at 2.01 times a teacher's and a carer's at 2.00 — the same TPD loading on two jobs that share almost nothing — while their income protection sat 57% apart. That cross-occupation view is published as the cost of life insurance by occupation.

Book a quick review with an adviser

Book a quick review with an adviser now. A review compares current pricing across the insurer panel on an individual's actual profile, checks the cover is held in the most cost-effective structure across super and personal ownership, and looks at the definitions and benefit periods behind the price.

Find out if you're eligible →

About the Author

Christopher Hall, AdvDipFP, is the principal financial adviser at Arrow Equities and an Authorised Representative under AFSL 526688. He has completed more than 500 life insurance policy reviews for Australian families, with a specialisation in life risk insurance.

Insurance product providers reviewed for this analysis (14 October 2026)

The ranking on this page was compiled across the Arrow Equities insurer panel. Each provider is listed below:

• AIA

• TAL

• Acenda

• Zurich

• MetLife

• OnePath

• NEOS

• PPS

• ClearView

• Encompass

Sources

• Premium figures and rankings: Arrow Equities adviser quotation software comparisons across the insurer panel, run 14 October 2026, on the standardised representative profiles described above. Income protection ranked on a 5-year benefit period; shorter-benefit-period quotes are set aside, not ranked.

• Ranking method: full-package price rank per occupation, scored (1st=1 … not-in-top-3=4) and averaged across occupations; recomputed monthly.

• Stamp duty: levied per state/territory on the premium (shown on each occupation page).

• Arrow Equities, AFSL 526688, ABN 87 645 284 680.

Educational Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The information, opinions and other materials appearing on the Web Site are of a general nature only and shall not be construed as advice. Arrow Equities is a trading name of Rose Bay Equities Pty Ltd, AFSL 526688, ABN 87 645 284 680. This general information is educational only and not financial advice, recommendation, forecast or solicitation. Arrow Equities accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information, opinions or other materials provided on or accessible through the Web Site. The Web Site has not been prepared with reference to your individual financial or personal circumstances. You should not rely on any advice in this Web Site without first seeking appropriate professional, financial and legal advice. Further, where Arrow Equities makes third party material available or accessible through the Web Site you acknowledge that Arrow Equities is a distributor and not a publisher of that content and that its editorial control is limited to the selection of those materials to make available. We accept no liability for any loss or damages arising from use.