If you are researching insurance aggregators to grow your independent agency, SIAA and IPA will likely both appear on your shortlist. Both provide independent agents with access to carrier markets they could not reach on their own — but they take meaningfully different approaches to how that access is structured.
Understanding those structural differences matters before you sign any agreement. This is a factual comparison to help you evaluate both options.
The Two Models at a Glance
SIAA: National Network, Regional Member Structure
SIAA (Strategic Independent Agents Alliance) is consistently cited as the largest insurance aggregator in the United States by premium volume. Founded in 1986, SIAA has built a national network of independent agents through a distinctive two-tier structure.
At the national level, SIAA operates as a master agency with carrier relationships that give the network significant premium volume and negotiating leverage. At the regional level, SIAA's network is organized through member agencies — established independent agencies that have joined the SIAA network and serve as the primary point of contact for agents who want to participate.
Key characteristics of the SIAA model:
- Largest aggregator by premium volume in the U.S.
- Two-tier structure: national network + regional member agencies as intermediaries
- Agents typically work through a local SIAA member agency, not directly with SIAA national
- Commission flow passes through the member agency layer
- Terms and support quality can vary significantly by member agency
- Strong carrier leverage due to aggregated premium volume
IPA: Direct Carrier Relationships, Centralized Support
Insurance Pro Agencies (IPA) is an aggregator built on a more direct model. Rather than routing agents through regional member intermediaries, IPA works directly with agents under IPA's master agency codes. Support, carrier relationships, and agency development resources flow directly from IPA to the individual agent.
Key characteristics of the IPA model:
- Direct carrier appointments through IPA master agency codes
- No regional member agency intermediary layer
- Centralized support, data tools, and agency development resources
- Access to 50+ carriers across personal, commercial, and specialty lines
- Full book ownership — your clients are your clients
- Technology and analytics tools designed to help agents grow their book
The Middleman Question
The most structurally significant difference between these two models is the presence (or absence) of an intermediary layer.
In the SIAA model, an individual agent's primary relationship is with a regional SIAA member agency. That member agency manages carrier access, commission splits, and day-to-day support. The quality of that experience depends heavily on which member agency you are aligned with — and there is meaningful variation across the network.
In IPA's model, the relationship is more direct. There is no regional intermediary sitting between you and IPA's carrier access. This can mean more consistency in support and a clearer commission structure, though it also means IPA's reach is not as geographically distributed as SIAA's member network.
Scale vs. Direct Access
SIAA's scale is a genuine competitive advantage. When you aggregate billions of dollars in premium across thousands of agencies, carriers take notice. That volume gives SIAA meaningful leverage in carrier negotiations — which can translate into better commission tiers and market access for member agents.
IPA's advantage is different: more direct relationships, more hands-on support, and tools specifically designed to help individual agents grow. For agents who want a partner actively invested in their development — not just a pipeline to carrier markets — the more direct model can be a better fit.
Commission Flow and Transparency
In the SIAA two-tier model, commissions flow from the carrier to the member agency and then to the individual agent. Each tier takes a share. Understanding exactly what you keep requires understanding both the SIAA national terms and the specific split your member agency offers.
In IPA's direct model, the commission flow is simpler: carrier to IPA to agent. There is one split to understand, and it is set at the IPA level rather than varying by regional member.
Who Each Model Fits Best
SIAA may be a fit if you:
- Are in a market where a strong SIAA member agency is already operating
- Value the leverage that comes from a large national premium volume network
- Want access to specific carriers where SIAA has strong relationships in your state
- Are comfortable working through a regional intermediary for support and commissions
IPA may be a fit if you:
- Prefer a direct relationship with your aggregator rather than working through a regional intermediary
- Want consistent, centralized support from a single organization
- Value data tools and agency development resources as part of the package
- Want clear, transparent commission structure without multiple layers
- Are building a commercial book and want hands-on support in that process
The Bottom Line
SIAA and IPA are both legitimate options for independent agents seeking carrier access through an aggregator. SIAA's scale and national footprint are real strengths. IPA's direct model and hands-on support structure serve a different kind of agent.
The best way to evaluate either is to talk to current members and ask direct questions about commission transparency, book ownership terms, and what support actually looks like in practice.
Ready to learn more about how IPA works? Book a discovery call and we will walk you through our model in detail.