First-party dataset · Updated May 2026

Australian Pet Insurance Statistics 2026

19 brands audited, 5 underwriters, Insu Scores spanning 36 to 76. Two underwriter families administer 14 of 19 brands — 74% of the directory.

A first-party dataset built from primary sources: each brand's current Product Disclosure Statement (PDS), the ASIC AFSL register, ProductReview.com.au public ratings, and AFCA Datacube complaint data. PDS read dates and verification sources are recorded for every brand. Use the figures below freely with attribution.

J By Jarrod, Editor · Compiled 27 Apr 2026, last verified 16 May 2026

Insu Score distribution

Each brand's Insu Score is built from four weighted components: Coverage depth (45%), Affordability (30%), Trust signals (15%), Customer experience (10%). Full methodology at /insu-score/. Scores marked "partial" indicate one component (typically Affordability) is pending a current-period quote sample.

Distribution: Min 36, Median 49, Mean 50.5, Max 76. Standard deviation 9.7. Range spans 40 points, indicating substantial product differentiation despite underwriter concentration. The top 2 brands (PIA and BWM) are both PetSure-administered with 20+ year operating histories — long brand operation and stable underwriter relationships both feed Trust signals.

Underwriter market concentration

Pet insurance brands are consumer-facing distribution layers; the actual policy is issued by an APRA-authorised underwriter. Identifying who underwrites a brand matters because: (a) claims handling, financial backing, and complaint patterns happen at the underwriter level; (b) sister brands often share product features, exclusions, and complaint history; (c) "two competing brands" can be the same underlying product with different marketing.

Why some brands share an underwriter

In Australian pet insurance, the consumer-facing brand is typically a distributor (often an Authorised Representative under the underwriter's Australian Financial Services Licence) rather than the entity that actually bears the insurance risk. PetSure has built its book by acting as both an underwriter and a binding-authority partner for retailers and affinity brands (Woolworths, Medibank, Bupa, HCF, Kogan). Pacific International — the only meaningful counter-weight — has grown the same way, often via Knose Financial Services as the underwriting agency.

Underwriter migrations 2023-2026

The AU pet insurance underwriter market underwent major restructuring in this period. Most consumer-facing comparison sites still show stale underwriter information, often months or years out of date. The verified transition dates:

Unverified dates: Pet Circle Insurance and PetsOnMe both transitioned to Pacific International during the 2023-2026 window but their exact transition dates aren't published in their PDS metadata. Each Hollard→PetSure transition followed the same playbook: "policies issued before [date] by Hollard, on or after [date] by PetSure", with Hollard remaining as administrator for legacy policies. Customers who haven't renewed since the transition date are still on Hollard policies.

Coverage patterns across the directory

How standard product features are treated across the 19 brands. Audited from each brand's current PDS during the April-May 2026 verification pass.

Annual benefit limits

The maximum payout per policy year, top tier. Highest in the directory: $30,000 (offered by Petsy, Pet Circle, several PetSure brands at top tier). Lowest top-tier: $12,000 (Guardian, locked across all three of its tiers). Most common top-tier ceiling: $20,000, used by 12 of 19 brands.

Reimbursement percentage

The portion of vet bills the policy pays after excess. Most brands offer 80% as their middle option. Highest reimbursement available: 90% (Petsy top tier, Bupa Signature Cover top option). Lowest: 60% (Guardian Bronze tier). Bupa's April 2026 Signature Cover relaunch was the first AU brand to expose all three reimbursement levels (70%/80%/90%) as choosable independently of cover limit and excess — 36 quote configurations total, the most flexible structure in the directory.

Excess flexibility

Australian Seniors and Guardian both offer $0 fixed excess on all tiers — unusual in the directory and a sister-brand commonality (both distributed via Greenstone Financial Services). Bupa's Signature Cover exposes four excess tiers ($0 / $150 / $300 / $600). Most brands offer two or three excess options; some lock excess at $250 with no flexibility.

Customer satisfaction

Ratings sourced from ProductReview.com.au — Australia's largest consumer review platform — as captured during the April-May 2026 audit pass. Ratings under 100 reviews are highlighted as "thin sample" because small samples are sensitive to both organic positive bias (small brands attract their fans) and adverse selection (small brands attract complainants).

Excluded from this table: Medibank Pet Insurance and Guardian Pet Insurance — both had review data extraction issues at audit time. See per-brand pages for current figures.

Methodology and data sources

Every figure in this dataset is sourced from primary, publicly-verifiable inputs:

• Coverage features: read directly from each brand's current Product Disclosure Statement. PDS read dates are recorded in the per-brand audit JSON.
• Underwriter mappings: verified from each brand's "Important documents" / "About" page or current PDS metadata, capturing exact entity name + AFSL number + effective-from date.
• AFSL numbers: cross-checked against the ASIC Financial Services Register at asic.gov.au/online-services/professional-registers.
• Customer ratings: captured from ProductReview.com.au public listings during the April-May 2026 audit pass.
• AFCA complaint data: sourced from the AFCA Datacube at data.afca.org.au/complaints-by-firm/. Aggregated at the underwriter level because AFCA does not publish per-brand pet insurance breakdowns.
• Insu Score formula: Coverage 45% + Affordability 30% + Trust 15% + Customer Experience 10%. Full methodology at /insu-score/ including the version history of formula changes.

What the data does not measure

• Per-brand pet insurance loss ratios. APRA's quarterly general-insurance statistics don't break out pet insurance as its own class, so a per-insurer "claims paid as % of premiums collected" number is not obtainable.
• Brand-level AFCA complaints. AFCA publishes complaints by underwriter (firm), not by consumer-facing brand. Brands sharing an underwriter (e.g. the 9 PetSure-family brands) share their complaint signal in this dataset.
• Total industry premium volume. APRA aggregates pet insurance inside broader product classes; we don't claim total-market-size figures from APRA data.
• Forward-looking premium movements. Insurers can adjust pricing quarterly. The affordability component uses the most recently scraped premium; the date of that scrape is recorded per brand.

Refresh cadence

Annual PDS rollover refresh during April-July (when most brands republish their PDS). Reactive updates on: underwriter changes, new market entrants, the 1 April 2027 private health insurance premium adjustment, and any major product redesigns (Bupa Signature Cover April 2026 being the most recent example).

Frequently asked questions

For journalists and researchers

Related

• The Insu Score methodology — formula, weights, version history
• All 19 brand audit pages — per-brand PDS-verified scoring
• Underwriter family pages — who administers which brands
• The AU pet insurance underwriter reshuffle 2023-2026 — long-form analysis
• Compare pages — best-of and head-to-head comparisons by scenario