Producers ask us all the time how CopyCat stacks up against Outmarket. Here is the straight answer in one table — the things that matter on a renewal, side by side.
“Yea we regret paying them, it never worked.”
— A CopyCat customer who came over from Outmarket
The side-by-side
| CopyCat | Outmarket | |
|---|---|---|
| Proposals that actually ship without rebuilding | ✓ | ✗ |
| Word-doc editor — type, fix, regenerate | ✓ | ✗ |
| Fast — full proposal in minutes, not hours | ✓ | ✗ |
| Your exact template — brand, colors, sections, all of it | ✓ | ✗ |
| Built with real producers, not focus groups | ✓ | ✗ |
| We onboard you personally and set everything up | ✓ | ✗ |
| Month-to-month — cancel anytime, no exit fees | ✓ | ✗ |
| Page-level citations back to the carrier PDF | ✓ | ✗ |
| Renewal diff between expiring and new policy | ✓ | ✗ |
| Direct line to the team — features ship from your calls | ✓ | ✗ |
| Time per proposal | 60–90 seconds | Unknown |
What the table actually means
The Outmarket proposal module looks fine on the demo and falls apart on a real renewal. Numbers don't match the source. The editor is a form with thirty fields. The template is a watered-down version of your brand. You spend most of the “saved” time rebuilding the proposal by hand.
CopyCat was built by producers who shipped renewals for a living and got sick of that loop. Every proposal cites back to the carrier PDF page-by-page. The editor is a Word doc — drop in, fix the typo, regenerate. The template is yours, pixel-perfect. The setup is on us. The contract is month-to-month.
Try it on a real account
The fastest way to see the difference is to put your own renewal in front of CopyCat. Bring a recent account — supplementals, carrier quotes, the whole packet — and we'll run it live on the call. If it isn't obvious in the first five minutes, we'll tell you straight.