Inside Foxquilt’s Tech Stack: Why They Chose to Build Everything In-House
While most insurtech startups cobble together solutions from third-party vendors, Foxquilt took a radically different approach. In a recent episode of Category Visionaries, co-founding partner Mark Morissette revealed why they chose to build their entire technology stack from scratch, and how this decision shaped their ability to serve enterprise customers.
The Genesis of the Build Decision
The decision to build in-house stemmed from Mark’s experience at Aviva Canada, where he witnessed firsthand the limitations of legacy systems. “Back then, 2008 or nine, they were still triaging in bricks and mortar branches customers by color coded paper,” Mark recalls. “There was no capabilities with regards to technology and fast forward. It still has been a fairly paralyzed value chain.”
Breaking Free from Legacy Constraints
Unlike the first wave of insurtech companies that primarily focused on customer acquisition, Foxquilt took a different path. “We said, okay, it’s time for insurance technologists to get in the game and focus on the value of building IP front to back,” Mark explains. This meant creating everything from their rating engine to their policy management system in-house.
The Technical Challenge
Building an insurance platform from scratch isn’t simple. As Mark notes, “Every state down to the font size is very different. So think about how complex, sophisticated and intelligent your machine has to be.” Their system needed to handle everything from initial policy creation to renewals and cancellations across multiple regulatory environments.
Creating Enterprise Advantages
The decision to build in-house became a crucial differentiator when pursuing enterprise partnerships. “When you’re not handcuffed to go knock on a vendor’s policy min system or any other vendor’s door, which takes… it’s very expensive to do that. Time consuming. We’re in control,” Mark explains. This control allowed them to customize solutions for large platforms in ways that legacy carriers couldn’t match.
The Resource Trade-off
Building everything in-house required careful resource allocation, especially with limited capital. “We’ve only raised $25 million in canadian currency,” Mark shares. This constraint forced them to be strategic about their development priorities. “What that does is that it makes you lean in on your intellectual capital and you solve problems with limited, smart people and you don’t throw money at it.”
Building the Right Team
The success of their in-house approach depended heavily on assembling the right team. “If you look at our cross, our broad leadership team, we all have a underwriting and PNC background. Even our heads of sales have underwriting backgrounds,” Mark notes. This deep industry expertise helped them build technology that truly addressed market needs.
Results and Validation
The investment in proprietary technology has paid off. Their platform now supports “800 different classes, 800 different product classes across three verticals,” and they’re “writing like a couple, almost a couple of million dollars a month in revenue” with over 8,000 clients.
Key Lessons for Founders
Foxquilt’s experience offers several important insights for founders considering whether to build or buy their core technology:
- Building in-house creates flexibility to serve enterprise customers in ways competitors can’t
- Deep industry expertise is crucial when building regulated products
- Limited capital can actually drive better technical decisions by forcing focus
- Control over your technology stack enables faster adaptation to market opportunities
- The right team is crucial for successful in-house development
For founders building regulated products, Foxquilt’s journey suggests that while building in-house requires more upfront investment, it can create sustainable competitive advantages, particularly when serving enterprise customers. Their experience shows that sometimes the best way to disrupt an industry isn’t just through better distribution, but through fundamental technology innovation.