A strategic read of what 43 senior leaders across Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore told us about embedded insurance: where the appetite is, what blocks delivery, and how they want to buy.
Across 43 senior decision-makers at banks, digital banks, super-apps, payments platforms and insurers in four SEA markets, the pattern is consistent. Demand is not the question. 88% rate embedded protection a top-three priority or say it's climbing, and only one respondent in 43 is not considering a change. What holds delivery back is the build: rigid core systems, fragmented multi-market licensing, and competing internal priorities.
For Cover Genius the more useful finding is how these leaders want to buy. Three in four want to keep the customer experience and hand only the infrastructure to a partner. That is the enabler position, sitting alongside existing carrier and bancassurance relationships rather than replacing them. The evidence supports leading with integration speed and claims performance, and framing the commercial conversation differently for platforms than for insurers.
This document is written for internal use. It states what the data establishes, where a planned headline needed reframing, and what to do with each finding. The headline map tab traces every claim back to its question and base; the data appendix carries every question in full.
Insurance has moved from a side revenue line to a board-level agenda item. 88% of leaders place it in the top tier of priorities or say it's rising, and only two respondents report it losing ground, both insurers in Thailand.
The barriers they describe are not about customer demand. Legacy technology and integration (49%), regulation (44%) and internal ownership disputes (42%) are each named by roughly four in ten leaders, and most name more than one. Only 14% cite weak demand. Capability exists across the region; it cannot be assembled fast enough to matter commercially.
This is the clearest signal in the study. 74% of leaders want to own the customer experience end to end or own most of it, with the partner behind the scenes as infrastructure. Only 9% would hand the customer relationship over.
The read for positioning is direct. The opening is for an enabler that removes the integration and claims burden while the client keeps the brand and the relationship. A pitch built as a replacement carrier works against the grain of what these buyers say they want. Traditional banks are the most protective of the front end, though on a small base (n=5).
The planned headline, that digital banks treat insurance as growth rather than a revenue line, holds directionally once the base is shown. 87% of digital banks would evaluate a partner off a loyalty or customer-expectation lever, against 40% of traditional banks. Digital banks also index higher on revenue diversification (47% vs 20%).
The traditional-bank base is n=5, so this is a directional contrast rather than a clean divide. The usable version for content is the retention framing: for digital banks, protection is a way to hold customers and deepen engagement, not just to add a line to the P&L.
When leaders describe what would make them evaluate a new partner, integration speed leads at 51% and claims at 42%, both ahead of commercials at 30%. Reliability and track record (44%) sits between them, so the accurate ranking is integration first, with claims and trust effectively tied behind it, and price fourth.
The window to be in that evaluation is open now. 98% name at least one trigger that would open a partner evaluation within 18 months, and the top two, a specific product launch (67%) and competitive moves (65%), are proactive rather than remedial. Leaders are shopping to launch and to keep pace, not to fix a failure.
Incumbents are liked for service, so a displacement pitch built on relationship quality will miss. The gaps buyers name in their current partners are integration friction (37%) and claims (30%), which are exactly the criteria they rank highest when choosing a new one.
A commercial lead owns the number in about half of organisations, but the roles named as hard gatekeepers are risk (30%), legal (26%) and technology (23%). Deals stall in second-stage review, not at first pitch.
The implication for ABM is concrete. Content aimed only at the commercial owner will clear the first gate and then stall. A compliance and security track, aimed at risk and legal, is what moves a deal through the review that actually decides it.
74% want to own the experience with a partner behind the scenes; only 9% would hand over the relationship. Lead with the enabler position.
Half name legacy systems as the blocker and 51% rank integration first when choosing a partner. Time-to-launch clears the first gate.
Risk, legal and technology are the hard gates. ABM needs a compliance and security track, not just a commercial deck.
Incumbents are liked for service. The gaps buyers name are integration friction (37%) and claims (30%), the criteria they rank highest.
43 senior decision-makers, fielded June to July 2026 via Cint and Prolific panels. All respondents operate in Southeast Asian markets and hold direct influence over insurance and protection decisions. 79% are C-suite or MD/SVP level, 79% are the primary decision maker, and 67% serve five million or more customers.
Sample by market: Indonesia 18, Thailand 10, Malaysia 10, Singapore 5. By organisation type: digital bank 15, ecosystem super-app 10, insurer 9, traditional bank 5, payments/wallet 4. Percentages throughout are calculated against the relevant subgroup base, shown alongside each figure. Subgroups under n=10, notably Singapore, traditional banks and payments/wallet, are directional rather than representative.
Six respondents answered the open-text questions in Thai. Those responses were translated and coded on meaning into the same framework as the English responses, so every chart reflects all 43 respondents. Open-response themes are coded and may exceed 100% where a respondent raised more than one.
The goal. Validate product-market fit for embedded insurance in Southeast Asian banking and fintech, and inform Cover Genius's go-to-market and ABM strategy. A qualitative sniff test before deeper investment in the region.
Across 43 senior decision-makers in four SEA markets, appetite is not the question and the barriers align with Cover Genius's proposition. Leaders describe an integration and claims problem, not a demand problem, and three in four want an enabler that sits behind their brand rather than a replacement carrier. The read is green: proceed, and lead with integration speed and claims.
Protection is already on the agenda: 88% rate it a top-three priority or say it's climbing, and only one respondent in 43 isn't considering a change. But maturity is thin. Distribution still leans on agents and relationships for complex products, and few have assembled a modern in-app experience.
Legacy technology and integration (49%), regulation (44%) and internal ownership disputes (42%) are each named by roughly four in ten leaders. Only 14% cite weak customer demand. The blocker is assembly speed, not appetite.
A commercial lead owns the number in about half of organisations, but risk (30%), legal (26%) and technology (23%) are the hard gatekeepers, so deals stall in second-stage review. 98% name a trigger to evaluate a partner within 18 months; the top two, a product launch (67%) and competitive moves (65%), are proactive.
Yes, decisively. 74% want to own the customer experience with the partner behind the scenes as infrastructure; only 9% would hand the relationship over. This is the clearest validation of Cover Genius's enabler position in the study.
Digital banks frame protection as a retention lever (87% would evaluate off a loyalty trigger vs 40% of traditional banks). Insurers are the least urgent segment and the only one where commercials never lead, so they read as a channel partner rather than a competitor for the same seat. Small bases on traditional banks and payments/wallet mean these are directional.
They map cleanly. Integration speed (51%) and claims (42%) lead, both ahead of price (30%), with reliability (44%) tied between them. Cover Genius's stated USPs, speed, intelligence and claims, are the exact axes these buyers say they weigh.
43 senior decision-makers, fielded June to July 2026 via Cint and Prolific panels. All operate in Southeast Asian markets and hold direct influence over insurance and protection decisions. Excludes pure carriers without bank distribution and existing Cover Genius customers in the region.
Percentages throughout are calculated against the relevant subgroup base, shown alongside each figure. Subgroups under n=10, notably Singapore, traditional banks and payments/wallet, are directional rather than representative. Six respondents answered open questions in Thai; those were translated and coded on meaning, so every figure reflects all 43 respondents.
The four headlines the research plan worked back from, measured against the verified N=43 results, plus the structural findings the data surfaced on top. Colour marks whether the data holds the headline as written, supports it once reframed, or points the other way. Every figure traces to the structured survey data and its question number.
88.4% of leaders rate protection a top-three priority or say it's climbing the agenda (Q7.1), yet the barriers they name are structural, not demand: legacy technology and integration (48.8%), regulation (44.2%) and internal ownership disputes (41.9%). Only 14.0% cite weak customer demand (Q2.1.2).
Carries the exec summary and §01. Lead with the gap between appetite and execution.
Report §0174.4% want to own the customer experience end to end or own most of it, with the partner behind the scenes as infrastructure. Only 9.3% would hand the customer relationship to a partner (Q5.1.1).
The single strongest stat for Cover Genius's positioning. This is the spine of the report.
Report §02Directionally supported: 86.7% of digital banks would evaluate a partner off a loyalty / customer-expectation lever, versus 40.0% of traditional banks, and digital banks index higher on revenue diversification too (46.7% vs 20.0%) (Q7.1.1). But the traditional-bank base is n=5, so this is a directional contrast, not a clean split.
Reframe from a hard claim to a directional contrast, and show the base. The retention-lever angle is the cleaner cut.
Report §03Integration speed leads at 51.2% and claims at 41.9%, both ahead of commercials / economics at 30.2% (Q5.1). Reliability and track record (44.2%) sits between them, so the honest version is that integration leads, with claims and trust effectively tied behind it, and price fourth.
Holds on the core claim; add reliability to the story so the ranking is accurate.
Report §04A commercial lead owns the number in about half of organisations, but risk (30.2%), legal (25.6%) and technology (23.3%) are the roles named as hard gatekeepers (Q3.1). Deals stall in second-stage review.
Strong enough to carry an implications point on ABM content design.
Report §05Only one respondent in 43 says they're not considering a change. The top two triggers, a specific product launch (67.4%) and competitive moves (65.1%), are proactive rather than remedial (Q7.1.1).
Establishes the buying window. Sits in the exec summary and §04.
Report §04Service and communication is the most common thing buyers say works about current partners (39.5%). The gaps they name are integration friction (37.2%) and claims (30.2%) (Q4.1), which map onto the criteria they rank highest.
Sharpens the displacement message: attack integration and claims, not the relationship.
Report §04Every survey question, screeners included, shown as a chart rather than a table. Click any segment to add it as a bar to every chart, and stack as many as you like to compare head to head, for example traditional bank versus digital bank, or across markets. "All respondents" is the baseline. Percentages are of each selected subgroup base; bases under 10 are directional.
Filter by market, organisation type and question. Six respondents answered in Thai; those quotes are translated and labelled, with the original available on each.