
GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Financial Services InsuranceTop 10 Best Solvency Ii Software of 2026
Compare solvency ii software options and how teams like insurers and auditors use them, with tradeoffs highlighted for shortlisting.
How we ranked these tools
Vendors set the topic, but our editors set the inclusion criteria and the evaluation framework before research starts.
Agents extract product evidence with provenance, then collect written reviews and transcribe 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 rankings. Editorial policy
Workiva is the best pick for mid-size insurers needing governed workflow automation across Solvency II reporting artifacts because its programmable linking keeps regulatory packages aligned when source figures change, while Arelle is a strong alternative for teams focused on repeatable XBRL validation before taxonomy filings thanks to extensible Python checks.
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Workiva
Document and spreadsheet link management with programmable updates keeps regulatory packages aligned when source figures change.
Best for: Fits when mid-size insurers need governed workflow automation across Solvency II reporting artifacts with traceable updates.
FIS Prophet
Editor pickModel-driven regulatory output workflow that keeps scenario execution and submission preparation in one governed process.
Best for: Fits when actuarial modeling ownership and supervisory reporting generation must use the same repeatable workflow.
Arelle
Editor pickPython extensibility lets teams add custom validations tied to their specific reporting conventions and data mappings.
Best for: Fits when teams generate XBRL Solvency II submissions and need repeatable validation before supervisory filing.
Comparison Table
Workiva
enterpriseCloud-native regulatory reporting platform supporting Solvency II disclosure and compliance documentation.
Document and spreadsheet link management with programmable updates keeps regulatory packages aligned when source figures change.
Workiva fits insurers that need a controlled workflow for Solvency II reporting artifacts across narrative, tables, and structured exports. The Wdata-to-Workiva Sheets and document collaboration model supports traceable changes and cross-linking between source data and regulatory-ready outputs.
Workiva’s automation and API surface focuses on moving and transforming reporting data, orchestrating updates, and keeping complex workpapers aligned. For teams producing supervisory reporting and public disclosure packages under tight change control, Workiva offers governance around review cycles, permissions, and audit trails.
- +Cross-linking between spreadsheets, documents, and reporting outputs reduces reconciliation work
- +API supports automated refreshes of reporting content after upstream data changes
- +Audit trails and review workflows support controlled sign-off cycles
- +Wdata integrations help centralize source data for repeatable reporting runs
- –Solvency II output requires deliberate configuration of templates, mappings, and validation rules
- –Complex chains of linked content can make impact analysis slower during late changes
- –Advanced automation depends on scripting and integration know-how for dependable throughput
- –Group-level reporting needs careful permission and ownership design to avoid bottlenecks
Solvency reporting controller teams
Coordinate entity inputs and governed report trails
Connected close with audit trail
Internal and external auditors
Manage evidence and clearance across workstreams
Controlled audit file
Show 2 more scenarios
Reconciliation and close teams
Trace exceptions to schedules and approvals
Traceable substantiation
Link reconciliation breaks to source data, supporting narratives, and approval workflows to resolve mismatches.
Corporate reporting teams
Assemble annual reports with approvals
Regulatory-ready reporting package
Coordinate narrative content and structured reporting requirements in one workspace with review history.
Best for: Fits when mid-size insurers need governed workflow automation across Solvency II reporting artifacts with traceable updates.
FIS Prophet
enterpriseFIS Prophet provides actuarial modelling for insurance liabilities, capital, and regulatory analysis.
Model-driven regulatory output workflow that keeps scenario execution and submission preparation in one governed process.
FIS Prophet focuses on actuarial model execution and regulatory output production, which helps when actuarial teams need the modeling layer to feed reporting. The workflow supports recurring recalculation, versioning of model inputs, and repeatable generation of supervisory packages for internal review and submission readiness. It also supports automation patterns for model runs so production teams can schedule and standardize tasks across reporting cycles.
A key tradeoff is that governance and integration effort often depends on the insurer’s existing actuarial data pipelines and submission toolchain. Prophet fits best when an organization already organizes assumptions, cashflow drivers, and outputs into a consistent actuarial workflow, then needs reporting outputs aligned to that workflow. It can be less efficient when the primary requirement is only report formatting with minimal actuarial modeling change.
- +Actuarial model execution stays connected to regulatory output preparation
- +Repeatable runs reduce variation between Solvency II cycles
- +Automation supports batch processing of model scenarios
- +Structured submission workflows support controlled change management
- –Integration depth with existing data warehouses can drive implementation time
- –Model governance requires disciplined input management to avoid drift
- –Advanced automation needs actuarial-adjacent process ownership
- –Reporting customization may require deeper platform configuration
Actuarial modeling teams
Run scenario batteries and produce submission outputs
Lower cycle-to-cycle output variance
Solvency II reporting teams
Standardize quantitative and narrative production
Faster preparation for review gates
Show 2 more scenarios
Group solvency managers
Coordinate model results across entities
Clearer audit trail of assumptions
Managers consolidate model outputs into a structured set of results for group-level preparation and review.
Insurance data engineering teams
Automate input provisioning for modeling runs
Higher throughput for recurring runs
Engineering teams automate provisioning of assumptions and drivers to reduce manual data handling before runs.
Best for: Fits when actuarial modeling ownership and supervisory reporting generation must use the same repeatable workflow.
Arelle
API-firstOpen-source XBRL processing engine used for Solvency II taxonomy filings.
Python extensibility lets teams add custom validations tied to their specific reporting conventions and data mappings.
Arelle parses XBRL instance files against the relevant taxonomy and produces validation findings that can be used to fix mapping, dimensional content, and structural issues before submission. It supports common Solvency II workflows that require checking QRT and narrative reporting templates delivered in XBRL form, including Data Point Model consistency when the target taxonomy encodes it. Automation is a core fit signal because Arelle can be executed in batch mode so validation can run as part of a nightly or release pipeline.
A practical tradeoff is that Arelle validates what is already packaged into XBRL files and does not replace actuarial calculation or capital engine work. A governance-heavy office still needs an external process for versioning source data, approving changes to mappings, and controlling who can run and interpret validation runs. The best usage situation is a team that already produces XBRL outputs from a reporting workflow and needs deterministic, repeatable validation with clear error localization.
- +Strong XBRL instance validation with detailed, actionable findings
- +Extensible via Python for custom checks and workflow automation
- +Batch execution supports repeatable validation in pipelines
- +Handles Solvency II taxonomy conformance and report structure checks
- –Does not compute SCR, MCR, or technical provisions from inputs
- –Governance and approvals require external workflow controls
- –Setup requires taxonomy alignment and validation configuration discipline
Regulatory reporting engineers
Validate recurring QRT XBRL outputs
Fewer submission defects
Group reporting teams
Reconcile taxonomy conformance across entities
Consistent compliance checks
Show 2 more scenarios
Actuarial operations support
Validate technical provisions reporting instances
Faster issue isolation
Use Arelle validation results to localize structural issues in produced XBRL liability data.
Compliance platform builders
Integrate validation into CI workflows
Automated release gating
Execute validation in non-interactive jobs and publish validation outputs for downstream review.
Best for: Fits when teams generate XBRL Solvency II submissions and need repeatable validation before supervisory filing.
CoreFiling Seahorse
vertical specialistXBRL data sourcing, mapping, and validation platform for Solvency II Pillar 3 reporting.
Evidence-linked workflow that keeps parameter changes tied to calculation results and reporting sections.
CoreFiling Seahorse differentiates through a documentation-first workflow that ties Solvency II artifacts to calculation, reporting, and evidence capture in one place. It supports SCR and MCR computation lifecycles, including configuration of inputs used by the standard formula and mapped model components.
- +End-to-end traceability links assumptions, calculations, and reporting evidence.
- +Template-driven supervisory and public reporting reduces manual document assembly.
- +Configurable calculation input mapping supports repeatable recalculation runs.
- +Audit trail captures who changed parameters and when within approval flows.
- –Complex actuarial setup needs careful configuration to avoid input mismatches.
- –Automation coverage is stronger for reporting workflows than for custom analytics.
- –Integration depth depends on supported import and export shapes for upstream systems.
- –Model extension work can require specialist configuration rather than self-service.
Solvency reporting specialists
Produce QRT outputs from managed data
Review-ready QRT packages
Actuarial teams
Manage SCR and MCR lifecycles
Traceable calculation outputs
Show 2 more scenarios
Regulatory filing operations teams
Automate handoffs to filing packages
Fewer manual transfer steps
Use workflow or API-supported handoffs to move tagging outputs into repeatable filing preparation processes.
Supervisory reporting teams
Prepare SFCR and RSR narratives
Submitted reporting documents
Generate template-driven narrative sections aligned to XBRL-based deliveries for SFCR and RSR reporting documents.
Best for: Fits when actuarial and compliance teams need traceable Solvency II reporting with governed change workflows.
SAP Financial Consolidation
enterpriseEnterprise financial consolidation and regulatory reporting including Solvency II support.
Consolidation workflow orchestration that connects controlled adjustments to QRT and narrative report production with governed approvals.
SAP Financial Consolidation executes group reporting and consolidation workflows that feed Solvency II capital calculation outputs and supervisory reporting packages. It supports multi-entity data collection, consolidation adjustments, and controlled preparation of QRT and narrative reporting artifacts using configurable template logic.
- +Tightly integrated consolidation workflows for group reporting readiness
- +Configurable QRT and narrative reporting generation from controlled inputs
- +Role-based access controls plus audit trails across consolidation changes
- +Automation via consolidation job runs and integration hooks for upstream data
- –Complex setup effort for Solvency II mapping and parameter governance
- –Limited support for deeply customized actuarial calculation logic inside the tool
- –Template-driven reporting can lag behind rapid regulatory template changes
- –External data quality requirements increase validation workload for groups
Group finance consolidation teams
Automate Solvency II capital data preparation
Faster, audit-ready capital inputs
Regulatory reporting officers
Generate QRT templates and narratives
Consistent Solvency II submissions
Show 2 more scenarios
Data governance and control teams
Enforce access controls and change tracking
Reduced reporting integrity risk
Role-based access controls and audit trails track updates across consolidation, adjustments, and report production workflows.
Integration analysts
Sync external Solvency II source data
Lower manual reconciliation effort
Published APIs support integration patterns that move validated consolidation data to and from external systems.
Best for: Fits when group finance teams need controlled consolidation and Solvency II reporting pipelines with strong auditability.
Asseco Solvency II
enterpriseEnd-to-end Solvency II solution integrating all three pillars with SCR, MCR, QRT, and ORSA support.
Governance-aware run management that maintains trace links between calculation inputs and the produced reporting outputs.
Asseco Solvency II targets insurance groups and insurers that need end-to-end support for Solvency II computations, reporting preparation, and governance workflows. Its scope centers on a central calculation and data workflow that connects SCR generation, QRT reporting production, and the supporting documentation trail used for internal and supervisory review.
- +Calculation workflow connects SCR inputs to QRT output preparation
- +Extensibility supports connecting external data and parameter feeds
- +Repeatable configuration supports consistent runs across reporting cycles
- +Audit-trace oriented process supports internal governance workflows
- –Admin setup and governance tuning take time for clean, repeatable runs
- –Workflow depth can lag specialized actuarial modeling tooling
- –Complex reporting variants increase operator effort during change cycles
- –Limited evidence of turnkey coverage for every group modeling structure
Solvency II actuarial teams
Run SCR models and validation packs
Faster SCR release cycles
Regulatory reporting coordinators
Produce QRTs from controlled data lineage
Repeatable QRT production
Show 2 more scenarios
Group finance governance owners
Coordinate solvency governance across entities
Consistent group-wide sign-offs
Workflow controls standardize inputs, parameters, and sign-offs across insurer and group structures.
Risk management data teams
Integrate parameter sources via APIs
Reduced manual data reconciliation
API-oriented connectors pull reference data and parameters into the calculation workflow with controlled change tracking.
Best for: Fits when insurers need governed Solvency II calculation runs that feed QRT production with traceability.
Solvency II Solutions Tabular
vertical specialistOn-premises platform automating Solvency II and Solvency UK reporting from data ingestion to XBRL submission.
Grid-driven calculation configuration that keeps parameter changes distinct from computation steps during SCR recalculation.
Solvency II Solutions Tabular centers on tabular, grid-driven modeling workflows for SCR and related calculations that need audit-grade traceability. The product’s core workflow focuses on data ingestion into structured calculation inputs, scenario recalculation, and controlled export outputs aligned to supervisory reporting deliverables.
- +Tabular modeling supports controlled recalculation across scenario inputs.
- +Template-based output handling reduces manual rework for reporting extracts.
- +Configuration-driven parameters help separate assumptions from computation logic.
- +Traceable change points make model updates easier to review internally.
- –Grid-centric workflows can slow teams needing extensive narrative composition.
- –Automation coverage for full QRT filing pipelines is limited without external tooling.
Actuarial reserving teams
SCR build and scenario recalculation
Audit-ready calculation trail
Compliance and reporting teams
Supervisory deliverable data export
Consistent submission files
Show 2 more scenarios
Group finance consolidation teams
Undertaking templates and assumptions
Reduced assumption maintenance
Applies configuration-driven templates to manage undertaking-specific assumptions without altering core logic.
Model governance teams
Controlled change management
Lower governance risk
Supports standardized tabular modeling workflows to preserve audit-grade traceability when calculation inputs change.
Best for: Fits when solvency calculation teams need controlled, tabular scenario modeling and repeatable reporting extracts.
Moody's Analytics RiskIntegrity
enterpriseRiskIntegrity supports insurance capital modelling, Solvency II calculations, and regulatory reporting.
Operationalized Solvency II calculation runs that connect model inputs, validations, and reporting production in one workflow.
Moody's Analytics RiskIntegrity is a Solvency II governance and calculation workflow environment used to run SCR and capital planning processes, with Moody’s models and reporting building blocks. It supports end to end activities around underwriting and data-to-reporting cycles, including validation checks that feed supervisory reporting outputs.
- +SCR and capital planning workflows designed for recurring Solvency II cycles
- +Tight linkage between analytics inputs, checks, and reporting outputs
- +Configuration controls support repeatable runs across legal entities
- +Integration with Moody’s analytics content for model and reporting continuity
- –Requires structured onboarding of inputs and calculation mappings before automation stabilizes
- –Customization of narrative reporting workflows can be slower than template-driven tooling
- –Reporting output tailoring depends on the available templates and configuration depth
- –Advanced setups can increase admin overhead for cross-entity governance
Solvency II governance teams
Run SCR workflows and approvals
Repeatable SCR calculations
Actuarial modeling teams
Validate data-to-reporting inputs
Fewer calculation exceptions
Show 2 more scenarios
Group capital planning teams
Coordinate multi-entity capital planning cycles
Coordinated capital projections
It operationalizes solvency workflows across business lines and legal entities for capital planning runs.
Reporting production teams
Produce recurring supervisory reporting outputs
Consistent reporting releases
It uses configuration controls to schedule recurring calculations and generate repeatable reporting outputs.
Best for: Fits when insurance groups need repeatable Solvency II calculation and reporting operations with Moody’s model content.
BearingPoint Abacus360
enterpriseAbacus360 supports regulatory reporting, data validation, and submission management for regulated firms.
Workflow orchestration that binds SCR calculation outputs to QRT and XBRL instance production under review controls.
BearingPoint Abacus360 centralizes Solvency II production work so teams can run SCR calculations, generate QRT deliverables, and assemble narrative content for supervisory reporting in one controlled cycle. It supports configurable processes for Undertaking-specific parameters and consolidates outputs needed for ORSA support and follow-on reporting tasks. Automation focus shows up in rule-driven steps that guide data through calculation, review, and publishing preparation so evidence stays attached to each run. This design is best suited to organizations where multiple roles collaborate across actuarial, finance, and governance reporting.
- +End-to-end workflow control from calculation runs to supervisory deliverables
- +XBRL instance generation tied to the reporting run lifecycle
- +Configurable review and approval steps for evidence retention
- +Parameter and calculation inputs handled with traceability
- –Requires process and governance configuration before scaled rollout
- –Workflow discipline can slow fast turnarounds without prior setup
Actuarial production teams
Run SCR cycles with controlled inputs
Repeatable SCR production cycle
Solvency reporting managers
Assemble QRT and narrative reports
Coordinated reporting release
Show 1 more scenario
Governance and compliance owners
Maintain evidence for review
Clear audit trail coverage
Run history and approval steps provide traceable compliance evidence across reporting cycles.
Best for: Fits when Solvency II reporting teams need governed end-to-end run orchestration with XBRL output support.
AMINDIS Solvency II
vertical specialistIntegrated simulation environment for SCR calculation, stress testing, and QRT production with Excel export.
End to end submission preparation workflow that ties calculation inputs to generated supervisory and narrative reporting outputs.
AMINDIS Solvency II calculates SCR results, builds statutory output packages, and supports ongoing governance artifacts for the solvency cycle. The software focuses on end to end workflows from model parameter management through supervisory submission preparation, including QRT and SFCR style deliverables.
- +Repeatable SCR calculation runs with controlled input handling
- +Reporting output generation for QRT and SFCR style cycles
- +Workflow controls for document and parameter changes across periods
- +Audit-friendly traceability from inputs to generated submission files
- –Model and reporting configuration requires careful upfront governance discipline
- –Limited evidence of broad native integration coverage beyond reporting workflows
- –Complex setups can slow down iterative reviews of assumptions
- –Change history visibility depends on how teams structure data inputs
Regulatory reporting teams
Generate SCR and statutory output packages
Faster submission readiness
Actuarial model owners
Run internal model variants safely
Reduced model change risk
Show 2 more scenarios
Solvency II governance managers
Maintain QRT and SFCR workflows
Consistent governance evidence
Supports ongoing governance artifacts by standardizing input control and output generation for each cycle.
Risk and compliance analysts
Prepare supervisory submission documentation
Improved audit trail
Generates structured reporting outputs aligned with QRT and supervisory submission requirements.
Best for: Fits when a solvency team needs managed calculation and reporting workflows with strong traceability across submission cycles.
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 solvency ii software, Workiva 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 Solvency Ii Software
How does BearingPoint Abacus360 handle the path from SCR calculation outputs to QRT and XBRL instance files under review controls?
Which tool is best suited for repeatable XBRL instance validation against the Solvency II taxonomy?
When teams need both an actuarial modeling run and supervisory submission preparation in the same governed process, which product fits?
How does Moody's Analytics RiskIntegrity operationalize Solvency II calculations across underwriting and data-to-reporting cycles for groups?
What breaks if a group uses consolidation workflows without a controlled audit trail for Solvency II reporting inputs and adjustments?
How does CoreFiling Seahorse manage evidence and approval flows across assumptions, calculations, and SFCR or RSR-style narrative sections?
Where does Workiva’s approach fit best when reporting workpapers require cross-linking between source figures and regulatory-ready documents?
How does Asseco Solvency II connect SCR generation to QRT production with traceability between inputs and produced outputs?
Which tool uses grid-driven modeling configuration so parameter changes remain distinct from computation steps during SCR recalculation?
When regulatory submission packages require coordinated generation of QRT and SFCR-style deliverables from controlled inputs, which product aligns best?
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
How to Choose the Right Solvency Ii Software
We look at how well solvency ii software supports your own calculation and reporting workflow, not just whether it can “export files.” The biggest separator is whether the product handles your SCR and reporting cycle with the level of control, audit evidence, and mapping you need.
SCR calculation coverage
Why it matters
SCR calculation coverage determines whether your model produces the solvency results you expect without manual rework. If coverage is thin, teams end up stitching outputs outside the tool, which increases reconciliation effort.
How to check
Run a demo scenario using inputs that mirror your actual approach and check whether the product explains what it can and cannot calculate. Ask for a walkthrough of the full path from inputs to solvency outputs and review what gets left as a manual step.
Reporting template output fidelity
Why it matters
Reporting template output fidelity matters because solvency reporting is strict on layout and content. Gaps force last‑mile editing that can break repeatability between runs.
How to check
Request a sample set of the reporting outputs produced from a single run, including the narrative and quantitative sections. Verify whether the tool matches the expected structure and naming conventions in its own sample documentation.
Data mapping and input controls
Why it matters
Data mapping and input controls reduce the risk that wrong line items or units land in the calculation and reporting. This is especially important when you reuse data across reporting periods.
How to check
Inspect the input setup screen and ask how the product validates required fields, formats, and cross‑field consistency. Provide one intentionally flawed input and confirm what the tool catches and how it shows the source of the issue.
Repeatable reporting cycle automation
Why it matters
Repeatable reporting cycle automation helps teams rerun the process consistently across periods. Without it, you risk divergent outputs caused by manual steps and version drift.
How to check
Ask the team to demonstrate a full “from inputs to reporting pack” run more than once, after changing one input set. Check whether the tool records what changed and whether the outputs update deterministically.
Audit trail and change history
Why it matters
Audit trail and change history supports evidence collection when results are reviewed internally or by auditors. It also helps isolate why a later run differs from an earlier run.
How to check
In a demo, change a key input or mapping, rerun, and open the result history. Confirm it shows the before/after values, what configuration changed, and which outputs were regenerated.
Validation workflow support
Why it matters
Validation workflow support affects whether teams can document assumptions and checks around results. Strong workflows reduce time spent hunting for evidence after stakeholders ask questions.
How to check
Ask how the product captures validation notes, sign-offs, and links to the resulting outputs. If it supports a validation checklist, request an example and verify where reviewers can see discrepancies and reasoning.
Red flags
- Outputs require heavy manual editing to match the reporting pack structure
- Reruns with the same inputs do not reproduce identical results
- Validation and change history do not clearly link inputs to outputs
Fit by situation
- If you need to calculate your SCR results inside one workflow, prioritize SCR calculation coverage.
- If you will generate a reporting pack every period, prioritize Reporting template output fidelity.
- If you must defend changes and results over time, prioritize Audit trail and change history.
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 →
- Financial Services InsuranceTop 10 Best Insurance Compliance Software of 2026
- Financial Services InsuranceTop 10 Best Insurance Compliance Licensing Software of 2026
- Finance Financial ServicesTop 10 Best Financial Services Regulatory Compliance Software of 2026
- Business FinanceTop 10 Best Financial Compliance Software of 2026
- Financial Services InsuranceTop 10 Best Insurance Management 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
Financial Services Insurance alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of financial services insurance tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare financial services insurance tools→