GITNUXSOFTWARE REVIEW
Business & FinanceTop 8 Best Actuarial Valuation Software of 2026
A market-research roundup comparing actuarial valuation software options and fit for teams, with tool notes on SAS Actuarial, Milliman Integrate, and Aon ACE.
How we ranked these tools
Vendors set the topic, but our editors set the inclusion criteria and the evaluation framework before research starts.
Search agents gather the source set and the review record, including transcriptions of video reviews and podcasts.
Framework: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page. This does not influence our reviews. Editorial policy
SAS Actuarial is the best choice for pension teams that already run SAS because it builds valuation pipelines around reusable, parameterized batch recalculation that stays repeatable for downstream reporting, whereas PolySystems is a strong alternative for actuarial firms needing scenario-driven batch runs that swap assumption sets each cycle.
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
SAS Actuarial
SAS-driven valuation pipelines that reuse analytical components for parameterized, valuation-date batch recalculation and downstream reporting.
Best for: Fits when pension valuation teams already run SAS analytics and need automated, repeatable calculation outputs.
Milliman Integrate
Editor pickReusable calculation configurations support recurring pension valuation runs across multiple plan designs.
Best for: Fits when pension teams need repeatable valuation workflows with configurable calculations and centralized report production.
Aon ACE
Editor pickRun traceability for valuation calculations links assumption and configuration changes to specific valuation output runs.
Best for: Fits when actuarial teams need controlled, repeatable pension valuation calculations with structured assumptions and standard reporting outputs.
Comparison Table
SAS Actuarial
enterpriseActuarial modeling and valuation solution within the SAS analytics ecosystem.
SAS-driven valuation pipelines that reuse analytical components for parameterized, valuation-date batch recalculation and downstream reporting.
SAS Actuarial targets actuarial valuation workflows with analytics that connect directly to pension and employee benefits modeling tasks. It supports assumption handling for discount-rate and other valuation drivers, plus repeatable calculation runs for valuation-date outputs.
The software is built around SAS analytics components, so the automation story tends to center on batch execution, parameterized configurations, and integration with broader SAS deployments. Reporting and disclosure outputs are driven by the calculation artifacts produced in the valuation pipeline rather than by a separate rules-only layer.
- +Tight alignment with SAS batch analytics for repeatable valuation runs
- +Assumption parameterization supports controlled valuation-date recalculation
- +Works well in regulated environments with standardized analytics governance
- +Automation friendly for end-to-end actuarial calculation execution
- –Strong SAS-centric workflow can slow teams that avoid SAS tooling
- –UI-based model authoring is less prominent than analyst-driven scripting
- –Complex disclosure formatting can require custom report engineering
- –Integration depth depends heavily on existing SAS deployment patterns
Actuarial valuation teams
Run repeatable liability projections
Consistent valuation outputs
Pension modeling analysts
Standardize assumption-driven schedules
Reproducible schedules
Best for: Fits when pension valuation teams already run SAS analytics and need automated, repeatable calculation outputs.
Milliman Integrate
enterpriseCloud-based actuarial platform for insurance modeling, valuation, and reporting.
Reusable calculation configurations support recurring pension valuation runs across multiple plan designs.
Milliman Integrate calculates pension liabilities and produces recurring valuation reports through a browser-based workflow. The application connects data intake, valuation runs, scenario analysis, and report generation in one environment.
Its configurable calculation framework supports multiple plan designs and assumption sets from shared inputs. Documentation provides less clarity on API access, granular RBAC, and audit-log capabilities than integration-focused products.
- +Configurable calculation rules accommodate varied pension plan designs.
- +Browser access supports centralized work across actuarial and client-service teams.
- +Shared inputs reduce handoffs between calculations and report production.
- +Milliman expertise supports complex assumption and plan configurations.
- –API, schema, and integration documentation is less detailed than developer-oriented alternatives.
- –Implementation requires careful model configuration and validation.
- –Workflow automation controls receive less emphasis than valuation calculations.
- –Primary focus on pension work limits relevance for broader insurance valuation teams.
Insurance actuaries teams
Project pension liabilities each cycle
Traceable valuation outputs
Pension administrators
Reconcile data before extracts
Cleaner valuation inputs
Show 2 more scenarios
Insurance finance teams
Prepare IFRS 17 measurement reporting
Auditable reporting package
Connect measurement calculations to journal and disclosure data preparation for auditable flows.
Experience study actuaries
Govern updated experience assumptions
Controlled assumption updates
Translate experience study results into governed assumption sets and repeatable projection runs.
Best for: Fits when pension teams need repeatable valuation workflows with configurable calculations and centralized report production.
Aon ACE
enterpriseAon's actuarial and analytics platform for casualty and pension valuations.
Run traceability for valuation calculations links assumption and configuration changes to specific valuation output runs.
Aon ACE is Aon’s actuarial valuation software used to run pension valuation workflows for defined benefit accounting and reporting packages. It centers on assumption management, calculation orchestration, and production of valuation outputs tied to valuation dates and plan data extracts.
The workflow supports repeatable runs for pension valuation schedules and can integrate external census and asset inputs into a controlled calculation process. Governance controls focus on model configuration, calculation settings, and run traceability for audit-ready internal outputs.
- +Strong workflow fit for pension valuation runs tied to valuation dates
- +Assumption configuration supports repeatable calculation settings
- +Run traceability supports internal review of valuation outputs
- +Supports importing and reconciling plan data inputs for calculations
- –Less flexible for non-standard actuarial modeling outside pension scopes
- –API and extensibility surface appears limited for custom automation
- –Report customization can be constrained by built-in output templates
- –Operational governance depends on disciplined configuration management
Defined benefit accounting teams
Run valuation workflows for packages
Audit-ready valuation outputs
Actuarial model governance leads
Manage assumptions and run traceability
Traceable run history
Show 1 more scenario
Actuarial data integration specialists
Ingest census and asset inputs
More consistent inputs
Integrate external census and asset inputs into a controlled calculation process.
Best for: Fits when actuarial teams need controlled, repeatable pension valuation calculations with structured assumptions and standard reporting outputs.
PolySystems
vertical specialistActuarial software for life insurance valuation, financial reporting, and risk management.
Scenario-driven batch valuation that reuses the same input structure while swapping assumption sets by valuation cycle.
PolySystems supports actuarial valuation workflows that map census and benefit details into repeatable liability outputs for pension reporting and funding scenarios. The core capability centers on valuation modeling that can reproduce assumption updates across a defined valuation date and generate standard valuation components such as service cost and interest cost.
- +Repeatable valuation runs designed for recurring pension cycles
- +Configurable assumption inputs that propagate through participant calculations
- +Batch report generation that reduces manual extraction work
- +Clear linkage from census inputs to standardized output components
- –Workflow setup requires disciplined configuration across valuation scenarios
- –API automation surface is less suited to ad hoc analytics without exports
- –Limited visibility into intermediate calculations without tailored outputs
- –Complex plan variations can increase model configuration overhead
Pension valuation teams
Map census into repeatable outputs
Repeatable liability measures
Valuation cycle operators
Reproduce model results by date
Consistent cycle results
Show 1 more scenario
Actuarial reporting specialists
Generate service and interest costs
Standard component outputs
Produce standard valuation components like service cost and interest cost for recurring valuation cycles.
Best for: Fits when actuarial teams need controlled, repeatable valuation runs across many plans and reporting formats.
ASC Actuarial
vertical specialistDefined benefit pension plan valuation software for actuarial firms and administrators.
Template-driven report generation that stays linked to the valuation run configuration for each plan and valuation date.
ASC Actuarial focuses on actuarial valuation execution, not just document assembly, by tying input management to valuation outputs and disclosure artifacts. The workflow centers on running valuations for specific valuation dates, managing assumptions, and reconciling inputs before publishing reports. Output generation is built around reusable templates so teams can keep report structure consistent across valuation cycles.
- +Repeatable valuation runs tied to valuation date and plan setup
- +Assumption and output templating supports consistent disclosure formatting
- +Controlled configuration helps keep review cycles aligned to governance
- +Audit-friendly tracking links input changes to valuation outputs
- –Complex plan variations require more configuration discipline
- –Modeling breadth can depend on the configured template set
- –Report customization may require deeper knowledge of template rules
Pension valuation teams
Quarterly valuation runs for multiple plans
Faster repeat-cycle production
Actuarial managers
Review and sign-off workflow control
More controlled review cycles
Show 2 more scenarios
Reporting and disclosure groups
Consistent accounting disclosures generation
Lower formatting rework
Generates disclosure-ready tables that follow the same templated layout across periods.
Actuarial operations
Input reconciliation and iterative corrections
Reduced data mismatch risk
Maintains structured input handling so corrections flow to updated valuation outputs.
Best for: Fits when teams need controlled, repeatable pension valuation runs and consistent report outputs across cycles.
AXIS
enterpriseActuarial modeling software for life insurance, annuity, and health insurance portfolios.
Reusable AXIS model components let teams run product, valuation, capital, and reporting projections from a shared calculation framework.
AXIS gives insurers a shared calculation framework for product models, portfolio projections, and actuarial liabilities. Teams can run deterministic or stochastic scenarios, process large model-point sets, and reuse components across product lines. The configuration depth supports IFRS 17 reporting workflows, capital analysis, and assumption-driven projection studies.
- +Reusable product components support consistent modeling across multiple insurance lines.
- +Deterministic and stochastic engines cover valuation, capital, and scenario analysis.
- +Batch processing handles large model-point populations and recurring portfolio runs.
- +Configured interfaces connect policy data, scenarios, and reporting workflows.
- –Advanced configuration requires experienced AXIS model developers.
- –Interface work can require insurer-specific data mapping.
- –The broad feature set increases implementation and testing effort.
- –Small single-line teams may use only a fraction of its capabilities.
Life insurance actuaries
Recurring in-force portfolio valuations
Repeatable portfolio results
Annuity modeling teams
Stochastic guarantee projections
Scenario-sensitive liability estimates
Show 2 more scenarios
Actuarial reporting teams
IFRS 17 projection workflows
Consistent reporting inputs
Configured models generate projected cash flows and calculation outputs for recurring financial reporting processes.
Model governance teams
Controlled model change management
Traceable model releases
Reusable components and defined configuration processes help separate model changes from recurring production runs.
Best for: Fits when large insurers need shared models for recurring valuation, capital, and reporting projections.
AFM
enterpriseOliver Wyman's actuarial financial modeling software for insurance and banking.
Configurable valuation-to-report workflow ties each calculation run to a report template for consistent disclosure packaging.
AFM is built around a valuation workflow that links census data to actuarial outputs and then to report-ready disclosures for pension valuation work. The software supports assumption setting runs that can be repeated for multiple valuation dates and scenario sets, which helps with pension plan funding and accounting valuation cycles. Data reconciliation features are used to manage differences between incoming census feeds and the data used for valuation calculations. Configuration controls help standardize how service cost and interest cost components roll into actuarial gains and losses across reporting packages.
- +Workflow configuration keeps valuation outputs consistent across valuation dates
- +Report generation aligns disclosure sections with modeled valuation results
- +Data reconciliation reduces risk from census and asset data mismatches
- +Scenario reruns support controlled changes to assumptions and inputs
- –Upfront governance is needed to lock calculation definitions and layouts
- –Complex governance setups can slow first-time rollout for new teams
- –Some integrations depend on specific export formats from upstream systems
- –Report customization can require specialist support for unusual layouts
Actuarial valuation teams
Recurring pension valuations by valuation date
Fewer rework cycles
Accounting reporting teams
US GAAP pension accounting disclosures
More consistent disclosure output
Show 2 more scenarios
Pension plan funding teams
Funding valuation under updated data
Reduced input-quality issues
Data reconciliation helps confirm census and plan asset inputs before computing valuation outputs.
Actuarial model governance leads
Standardized assumption and report governance
Tighter cross-team consistency
Controls keep service cost and interest cost rollups consistent across teams and scenarios.
Best for: Fits when valuation teams need repeatable pension valuation runs with reporting-grade outputs and controlled assumptions.
PensionGold
vertical specialistDefined benefit pension administration and actuarial valuation software.
Plan-level configuration controls calculation and report outputs in the same workflow, reducing run-to-run formatting drift.
PensionGold from PensionSoft is built for end-to-end actuarial valuation workflows, from census and benefit setup through valuation runs and report production. It focuses on repeatable configuration so teams can standardize assumption sets, calculation settings, and output formats across plans.
- +Census ingestion supports repeatable valuation runs across multiple plan configurations
- +Batch workflow supports production schedules for frequent valuation dates
- +Report generation keeps output structure consistent between runs
- +Assumption management helps maintain controlled assumption sets across valuations
- –Strong workflow depth requires careful setup of plan and benefit mappings
- –API and integration surface are not described as developer-first in common documentation
- –Data reconciliation tooling for plan assets can be limited depending on source formats
- –Change management around calculation configuration needs disciplined governance
Actuarial valuation teams
Standardize assumption sets and outputs
Uniform valuation outputs
Pension funding analysts
Run both accounting and funding valuations
Faster parallel valuations
Show 1 more scenario
Pension plan administrators
Isolate plan-level workflows
Separated plan results
Run batch valuation cycles with plan-level segregation so outputs remain separated across plans.
Best for: Fits when benefits and reporting need repeatable batch valuations across multiple plans and valuation dates.
Conclusion
After evaluating 8 actuarial valuation software, SAS Actuarial stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
Frequently Asked Questions About Actuarial Valuation Software
How do ASC Actuarial and AFM keep assumption setting and report packaging aligned to a valuation date?
Which tool best supports reusable calculation frameworks across multiple valuation, capital, and reporting workflows?
What breaks if an organization needs granular API access for valuation runs and report generation?
How do PolySystems and PensionGold handle repeatable scenario runs across many plans and valuation cycles?
When should a team choose Aon ACE over a standalone pension valuation workflow tool like Milliman Integrate?
How do ASC Actuarial and Aon ACE differ in governance mechanics for valuation preparation and review?
Which products support browser-based centralized valuation workflows with configurable calculation frameworks?
How do data ingestion and reconciliation workflows affect automation throughput in these tools?
What tradeoff appears when assuming teams need deep actuarial workflow configuration rather than interactive modeling?
How should admin controls and provisioning be evaluated when multiple valuation teams share plan-level outputs?
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
How to Choose the Right Actuarial Valuation Software
In actuarial valuation software, what separates options is whether the workflow matches your valuation cadence and whether you can trust the outputs from consistent inputs. Look hardest at automation depth in the valuation run, then at auditability, assumptions handling, and output controls like report templates and export formats.
Valuation run automation
Why it matters
Valuation run automation cuts repeated manual steps that cause input drift between runs. It also determines how consistently you can regenerate results for a new valuation date without rebuilding the whole workflow.
How to check
In a demo, ask the team to run a full valuation cycle end-to-end starting from an uploaded dataset through final outputs. Watch whether the tool reuses the same steps with only configuration changes, and whether errors are caught before final reports are produced.
Audit log and traceability
Why it matters
Audit log and traceability matter because valuation outputs depend on many upstream decisions. When something changes, you need a clear trail from inputs to outputs to explain differences.
How to check
Ask to view an audit history for a sample run: what changed, who changed it, and which outputs were affected. Then request a rollback or re-run path and confirm the tool can reproduce the prior outcome.
Assumption configuration controls
Why it matters
Assumption configuration controls control how assumptions stay consistent across runs and teams. They also reduce the risk of mixing incompatible assumptions between scenarios or versions.
How to check
During the demo, create two scenarios with different assumption sets and confirm the tool keeps them separate. Ask how assumptions are versioned, stored with the run, and reviewed before results are locked.
Data import validation
Why it matters
Data import validation affects data quality before actuarial computations start. Better validation prevents silent mapping errors that later look like model issues.
How to check
Request a sample import (or template) and intentionally introduce a common issue like a missing required field or mismatched identifier. Check whether the tool flags the issue, shows where it occurred, and stops or quarantines the bad records.
Report templates and exports
Why it matters
Report templates and exports matter because stakeholders consume results in specific formats and with required structure. When templates are flexible, you can regenerate consistent reports across different portfolios.
How to check
Ask to produce outputs in at least two formats (for example PDF and spreadsheet) from the same run. Check whether you can control sections, variable labels, and included tables without manual rework each time.
Red flags
- Outputs change when you re-run with the same inputs because the automation path isn’t consistent.
- Audit history doesn’t link parameter or assumption changes to specific output differences.
- Imports complete but with unclear warnings, and the tool doesn’t show which records caused mismatches.
Fit by situation
- If your team runs valuations frequently and needs repeatable regeneration, prioritize valuation run automation.
- If multiple analysts collaborate and you must explain result changes, prioritize audit log and traceability.
- If you manage multiple assumption scenarios and need clean separation, prioritize assumption configuration controls.
Funding and competing interests
This study was co-funded by several of the vendors assessed in it. No single vendor funded it. Funders could propose the market studied.
They had no role in selecting vendors, setting or weighting criteria, analysing data or drawing conclusions, and they received the same factual-accuracy check as every other vendor assessed.
Market definition, inclusion rules and criteria weights were fixed by an editor before research began and did not change afterwards. Editorial process →
- Top 10 Best Derivatives Risk Management Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Derivative Accounting Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Derivative Pricing Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Cash Flow Control Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Diligent Boards Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Lean Six Sigma Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Post Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Issue Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Rapid Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Small Group Management Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Counting Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Cell Phone Diagnostic Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Android Tablet Management Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Ceo Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Barcode Inventory Management Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Sales Project Management Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Risk And Compliance Management Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Sales Quoting Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Small Business Forecasting Software of 2026
- Top 10 Best Omni Banking Software of 2026
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Business & Finance alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of business & finance tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare business & finance tools→