Skip to main content
Valuation Platform

Performance.Accuracy. Stability.One engine. Every valuation cycle.

The valuation module of the StrinGaze actuarial platform — same engine that runs your pricing scenarios, now closing your books.

Built for the full valuation calendar: monthly and quarterly close, experience studies, assumption refresh, bonus investigation, and on-demand impact analysis. Validated against legacy actuarial platforms in every parallel-run engagement.

IFRS 17 BEL/RAMajor RBC frameworksEmbedded ValueGAAPStatutoryVNB
Business Outcomes

What Running Valuation on StrinGaze Means for Your Business

Hours

Close cycles in hours, not days

99.9%

Reconciliation accuracy against incumbents

12 days

Continuous production stability test, dual-centre DR

>50%

Lower TCO vs legacy actuarial platforms

TCO estimate modeled against typical enterprise deployments, factoring compute, licensing, maintenance, and change-request overheads. Exact savings vary by portfolio, infrastructure, and licensing posture. Methodology available under NDA.

The Valuation Calendar

One engine. Every valuation activity.

Valuation isn't a single event — it's a continuous calendar. The same engine handles all five workstreams, with the same model, the same data, the same audit trail.

Recurring

Monthly & Quarterly Close

IFRS 17 BEL + RA at policy level, GAAP, Statutory, major RBC framework capital — all frameworks, every cycle, on the same model. Close in hours, not days. CSM roll-forward handled by the paired IFRS 17 Reporting module.

Sub-hour per run is the multiplier — parallel orchestration compresses dozens of runs into hours, sustained across 12 consecutive close cycles.

Annual / Semi-annual

Experience Study

Mortality, lapse, and expense — actuals vs assumed, framework-aware. Slice by product, channel, cohort, jurisdiction without re-coding the model.

Experience study runs as a query against the same projection engine — not a separate parallel build.

Ad-hoc

Assumption Change Impact

Refresh mortality / lapse / discount-rate assumptions, re-run the full portfolio, attribute the impact framework-by-framework. No overnight wait, no re-modelling.

Run the impact study at 3pm, present to ALCO at 5pm — same day, same engine, same audit trail.

Annual

Bonus & Crediting Investigation

Par and UL bonus rate decisions, asset share, surplus distribution. Investigation runs share the same model as production close — no model drift.

Same engine that values the liabilities also runs the bonus what-ifs. One model, one source of truth.

On-demand

Impact & What-If Analysis

M&A due diligence, reinsurance restructuring, regulatory change scenarios. Spin up a what-if cycle on the production engine in minutes.

What-if cycles are first-class workloads, not exotic exceptions. Run them as often as the business needs.

Verified Benchmarks

Real numbers, multiple clients, every framework.

Validated at four life insurers between 2025–2026. All speedups normalised to compute-equivalent cores vs the legacy actuarial platform.

Typical 6×–11× faster on production workloads. Up to 21× on IFRS 17.

Speedup grows with portfolio size; parity achieved on 37% fewer cores.

Insurer A
WorkloadSub-product engine, full multi-framework
Speedup vs legacy platform6× to 9×
Insurer B
WorkloadMajor life portfolio, multi-framework parallel run
Speedup vs legacy platform5× to 21×
Insurer C
WorkloadRBC + IFRS 17, scales 35K → 200K MPs
Speedup vs legacy platform6× → 11.8× (grows with MP)
Insurer D
Workload3M MPs, full multi-framework
Speedup vs legacy platformSame close, 37% fewer cores

Up to 21×

Normalised vs legacy platform across all 5 frameworks

Scales with MP

6× at 35K MPs → 11.8× at 200K MPs (Insurer C)

5M MPs

Largest production portfolio benchmarked

Compute Efficiency

At Insurer D, StrinGaze matched the legacy platform's GAAP and RBC close on 37% fewer cores, and ran EV 1.35× faster on the same fewer-core hardware.

Validated at four life insurers between 2025–2026. Methodology — including normalisation, hardware specs, framework coverage and per-client conditions — available under NDA in technical review.

Closing the Books, Compared

Without a modern engine. With StrinGaze.

What a typical valuation cycle looks like on a legacy actuarial platform — and what it looks like on ours.

Legacy actuarial platforms
StrinGaze
Full portfolio close run
Legacy actuarial platformsOvernight, all weekend, or two-day window
StrinGazeHours end-to-end — sub-hour per run, parallelised meaningfully
Model maintenance
Legacy actuarial platformsThousands of lines of hard-to-read model code; change requests typically measured in weeks
StrinGazeBusiness-language DSL — reads like the spec, edited by the modeller
Cross-framework + new product reuse
Legacy actuarial platformsRe-code for each framework and new product type
StrinGazeWrite once, apply across IFRS 17 / major RBC frameworks / EV / GAAP
Reproducibility across runs
Legacy actuarial platformsDrift between runs, version chasing, audit pain
StrinGazeBit-exact across the 12-day consistency window
Disaster recovery
Legacy actuarial platformsSingle-site, manual failover, recovery measured in days
StrinGazeDual-centre, ≤ 4h RTO/RPO, live in production today
PAS-to-valuation data prep
Legacy actuarial platformsSeparate data-conversion layer, hard-to-maintain coding — every PAS schema or product change drives meaningful rework
StrinGazeBuilt-in data transformer on the same platform, same release cycle as the engine — lower rework burden when schemas or products change
Total cost of ownership
Legacy actuarial platformsCompute-scaled licensing, vendor-dependent change cycles, and ongoing implementation support — costs tend to compound year over year
StrinGaze>50% TCO reduction — cloud-native compute, in-house maintainability via actuarial DSL, transparent subscription pricing
Why One Platform Matters

One engine. From pricing to valuation to IFRS 17 close.

Most insurers run two actuarial systems — one for pricing, one for valuation — and bolt IFRS 17 on top of both. Three models, two reconciliations, one source of confusion. StrinGaze is one engine: the model that prices the contract computes the policy-level cash flows that feed IFRS 17 measurement.

Pricing

Day-1 model

Same Engine

Valuation

Every close cycle

The same model, the same data, the same audit trail — from origination through every subsequent close.

For the CFO

Auditable consistency, by design

The policy-level cash flows that feed your IFRS 17 CSM trace back to the exact pricing model that originated the contract. Same engine, same assumptions, same audit trail — from day-1 origination to every subsequent close cycle. No reconciliation between pricing, valuation, and IFRS 17.

For the Chief Actuary

One model. Two teams. Zero re-coding.

Pricing team and valuation team work on the same model. No re-coding for valuation, no re-validating, no quarterly "pricing said X, valuation said Y" reconciliation meetings.

For the CRO / CEO

One source of truth across the actuarial stack

Two-system architectures force you to defend two answers to every regulator question. One engine means one answer — and one platform to license, govern, and upgrade.

How the Engine Works

Modeling in business language. Maintained by actuaries, not vendor consultants.

Four engine capabilities that turn actuarial intent into running code — without hand-written loops, index management, or nested IF-ELSE that no one wants to inherit.

Write Once, Apply Across Frameworks

ClassTree handles framework-level logic reuse. The same liability model runs under GAAP, IFRS 17, major RBC frameworks, and Embedded Value — no code duplication, no parallel builds.

Assumption Tables, Read Themselves

Smart Table handles interval lookup, nested lookup, and framework-aware reads automatically. No user-written read code, no off-by-one bugs at month-end.

Reads Like the Spec, Not Like Code

An actuarial DSL that reads like clause documents. Formulas, matrix operations, IRR, runoff triangles — in syntax the modeller wrote, not the vendor consultant.

Close-Cycle Workflow, Orchestrated

Process Compass orchestrates the month-end close: data load, projection, reconciliation, sign-off. Human confirmation steps where they belong, automation everywhere else.

Built-in

Built-in Data Transformer — PAS to Valuation

PAS extracts ingested directly into valuation-ready format. No separate data-conversion layer to maintain, no brittle coding outside the platform — and a lower rework burden when PAS schemas or product configs change. Same platform, same release cycle as the engine.

Valuation Model Migration

From legacy valuation platform to production — without missing a close.

A structured 6-stage methodology with parallel-run reconciliation built in. Used in every StrinGaze engagement to retire the incumbent valuation platform on schedule.

Stage 01

Discovery

Current-model walkthrough — product taxonomy, scenario design, special product forms, run settings, model points, output requirements.

Stage 02

Migration

Code migration product-by-product, framework-by-framework.

Stage 03

Reconciliation

Single-point, single-product, and aggregate-level reconciliation against the legacy actuarial platform.

Stage 04

Tooling

Assumption maintenance tool, product extraction tool, report generation tool.

Stage 05

Documentation

Model technical doc (architecture, advanced functions, common attributes), operations doc (monthly close runbook), assumption doc (assumption inventory).

Stage 06

Go-Live & Parallel-Run

1–2 month-end parallel close cycles run on the new platform alongside the legacy actuarial platform, with daily variance reports.

Reconciliation is the contract

Every variance categorised under a three-scenario framework — eliminated, contained, or preserved. Audit-ready from cycle one.

See the full methodology
Accuracy

99.9% reconciliation accuracy. Every POC. Every framework.

Validated against legacy actuarial platforms in every parallel-run engagement, framework-by-framework, product-by-product. Numbers actuaries can defend in audit.

99.9%

Reconciliation vs incumbent — every parallel-run engagement

5

Frameworks validated in parallel run

Full

Portfolio reconciliation, not sample-based

NDA

Methodology shared in technical review

Reconciliation is where most platforms quietly fail. Ours doesn't. Each parallel-run engagement delivers a full reconciliation against the incumbent when the engagement scope calls for it — and we publish the differences with root cause, framework-by-framework, product-by-product.

Parallel-run methodology and full difference-handling documentation are available under NDA in technical discussions.

Stability

Built to run on a Tuesday afternoon. And every Tuesday after.

IFRS 17 closes in hours, not days. Run it monthly, run it weekly, run it on a Tuesday afternoon if you need to. Reproducible across runs, dual-centre DR, validated across a 12-day production stability test.

Sub-hour

Multi-million-policy IFRS 17 single run, validated across 12 consecutive business days

12 days

Continuous production stability test

60–150 ms

P95 API response at 350–500 req/s

≤ 4h

RTO & RPO for dual-centre DR — live today

Single-run speed is the multiplier. A full close cycle orchestrates many of these in parallel — sub-hour single runs compound into hours end-to-end. Legacy platforms have parallelism too, but multi-hour single runs cap how much compression parallelism can deliver.

Next step

See the engine, before you commit.

A live technical walkthrough of the valuation engine — our benchmarks, our reconciliation methodology, our architecture. Your team's questions, our team's answers, no data exchange required at this stage.