Ten video agencies ranked for insurance and financial services work in 2026, on commercial terms that survive compliance review and published regulated evidence.
This is a review desk, so the method comes before the list.
We ranked for one buyer: a company whose video has to clear a compliance review before it can be published, in insurance or financial services. That includes insurtech and financial software companies explaining a product, carriers and brokers explaining cover, and advisory firms producing marketing that a compliance department will read line by line. Four criteria, weighted in this order.
Weighted heaviest, and the reason is specific to this category rather than a general preference. A compliance reviewer reads the script and reads the cut, and each pass produces its own comments. An agency quoting a starting figure with revisions billed separately has moved that risk onto you in exactly the category where it is most likely to land. We gave the most weight to an all-in figure, then to any published figure at all, then to a published rate card.
Named clients or named volume, published on the agency's own site. "Financial services" on an industries list is not evidence. A named bank, a named carrier or a stated number of insurance projects is. We did not count directory listings or awards.
Whether the agency has written down what it does about compliance, rather than asserting that it understands it. The useful version names a mechanism: script and claims reviewed before the shoot, room left for disclosures, approved wording locked once cleared. Several agencies here publish one, which is more than this market usually manages.
Whether the published turnaround says what it includes. The best answer in this category is a figure that explicitly excludes your compliance review, because that is the only version a buyer can plan against.
What we did not optimise for. Not animation craft for its own sake, not awards, and explicitly not raw volume of insurance work. An agency with hundreds of carrier videos has proven something real, and where that is the credential you want, the list below names who has it. We also did not treat consumer insurance brand advertising and insurtech product explanation as the same brief, because they are not, and the routing section near the end says which agencies here do which.
| Agency | Published figure | Regulated evidence | Review process published | Better suited for... than... |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apollo Studio | $5,000 to $50,000+, all in | Fintech practice; Jump, built for financial advisors | Script and storyboard approved before production | Insurtech and financial software explaining a product, than carriers buying brand advertising |
| Lightswitch Video | Not published | Raymond James, UBS, Janney Montgomery Scott; 1,000+ agent pieces for a national insurer | Script and shot list before the shoot, so compliance sees it first | Firms producing advisor and agent video at volume, than teams wanting a figure before a call |
| Motif Motion | $4,500 to $7,000 and $7,000 to $11,000 per minute | AccessLex; fintech platforms and advisors | Built for SEC and FINRA review, with the method stated | Teams whose reviewers cite a rule by number, than teams needing a filmed crew |
| Wyzowl | Not published | 300+ videos for 50+ insurance companies; Paymentshield | Not published | Insurers wanting the deepest carrier track record, than teams needing a published rate |
| Epipheo | $10,000 to $45,000 typical for financial explainers | US Bank, Fifth Third Bank; 6,000+ videos since 2009 | Compliance review planned into the schedule from day one | One carefully made financial explainer, than continuous output |
| Gisteo | From $3,500 per 60 seconds, or $4,000 with scriptwriting | Insurance and financial clients since 2011; 3,000+ videos | Script-first review, and the timeline excludes your review | Smaller insurance budgets wanting a fixed quote, than enterprise brand films |
| Lifetime Media | Not published | Banks, investment firms and independent advisors | Review checkpoints at script, edit and final cut, with disclosures | Advertising that has to carry risk language, than teams wanting a published price |
| Vidico | Plans start around $5,000 a month | 920+ brands; a published finance practice | Not published | Funded fintech wanting a premium product story, than a one-off compliance-heavy film |
| B2W | Not published | Citibank, OnDeck, Tricolor, F.H. Cann; 400+ brands | Compliance-aware animation stated as a practice | Lending, collections and benefits explained in animation, than live-action advisor video |
| Magnet Media | Not published | 25 years across banks, asset managers, hedge funds, insurers and capital markets | Compliance and legal review built in from day one | Institutions running a content programme, than teams buying a single asset |
Apollo Studio tops this list on the criterion weighted heaviest, and it is the clearest case in the category. It publishes an all-in figure, $5,000 to $50,000+ with most projects landing between $15,000 and $30,000, covering scripting, production, revisions and final cuts rather than quoting a starting price and billing passes on top. In a category where a compliance reader reliably produces a third round, that is the commercial term that decides what the project actually costs.
Fintech is one of its six published industries alongside SaaS, AI, cybersecurity, healthcare and B2B services, and the work it publishes there is directly adjacent to the regulated buyer. Jump is built for financial advisors, filling out new-account paperwork straight from a client meeting, which is precisely the kind of workflow an insurance or advisory audience recognises. Its process puts script and storyboard approval before anything is produced, which is where a compliance objection is cheapest to absorb, and it publishes a window of about three weeks from kickoff to final cut.
Who it is less suited for. A carrier buying consumer brand advertising or a national agent campaign. That is a different brief with its own specialists, named in the routing section below.
Lightswitch Video has the deepest named track record here. It publishes Raymond James, UBS and Janney Montgomery Scott among its financial clients, and states it has produced more than 1,000 agent-focused pieces for a national insurance provider, which is the largest single body of insurance work anyone on this list claims.
Its published process is the one worth copying: script and shot list first, so the compliance team sees what will be said and shown before the shoot rather than after. It also publishes response commitments most agencies avoid, with first drafts inside 10 business days of the shoot and revisions returned within 5 business days of your feedback, and it names approvals and permissions rather than filming as the thing that moves a schedule.
Who it is less suited for. Teams that need a budget figure before the first conversation, since Lightswitch quotes per project.
Motif Motion publishes the most specific compliance process in this category, under a heading that names the regimes: built for your compliance review, SEC and FINRA. The method it describes is concrete rather than reassuring. Keep scripts and on-screen claims easy to check. Leave room for the disclosures your reviewers require. Lock approved wording once it clears.
It is also one of only three agencies here with a published rate, and the only one publishing per minute: $4,500 to $7,000 per minute at one tier and $7,000 to $11,000 at another. The Philadelphia studio works in animation and motion graphics for fintech platforms, institutions and advisors, and publishes regulated work beyond finance, including AccessLex in legal-financial education.
Who it is less suited for. Projects that need a filmed crew and people on camera, since the bench here is animation and motion graphics.
Wyzowl has the most insurance work by volume of anyone ranked here, and it publishes the number: 300+ videos for 50+ insurance companies, across global carriers, insurtechs, brokers, MGAs and comparison platforms, over more than a decade. Paymentshield is named, with work both explaining products and training advisers on how to introduce them.
That span matters because it covers the two halves of insurance video that usually need different vendors. Wyzowl produces customer-facing explanation of cover and claims alongside internal video keeping teams current on products, compliance requirements and claims processes. It has produced video for more than 2,000 businesses worldwide since 2011.
Who it is less suited for. Teams whose first question is the price, since Wyzowl quotes per project and publishes no rate.
Epipheo publishes more about what a financial video costs and how long it takes than anyone else in this category. Financial services explainers typically run $10,000 to $45,000, split by format: 2D animation at $15,000 to $45,000, motion graphics at $10,000 to $35,000, both at five to six weeks, and live action from $40,000 at six to twelve weeks.
It also states plainly that compliance review should be planned into the schedule from day one, which is the correct advice and rarer in writing than it should be. The track record behind it is the longest here, more than 6,000 videos since 2009 for over 3,000 brands, with US Bank and Fifth Third Bank named on the financial services page.
Who it is less suited for. Continuous output. This is a per-project studio and prices accordingly.
Gisteo is the only agency on this list publishing both a price and a timeline for insurance specifically, and the way it writes the timeline is the useful part. Videos start from $3,500 per 60 seconds, or $4,000 including scriptwriting, at 4 to 6 weeks plus your compliance review. Naming review as a separate block rather than folding it into the quoted window is the honest version of a schedule in this category.
It addresses the full insurance buyer set: carriers, agencies, brokers, insurtech, and benefits and claims teams, with animated explanation of policies, coverage and claims. The studio states insurance and financial clients since 2011 and 3,000+ videos produced, and runs a script-first review so claims are checked before anything is animated.
Who it is less suited for. A flagship brand film with a large production budget, since the model is built around efficient animated explanation.
Lifetime Media is the most explicit on this list about the two regimes most financial marketers are actually managed by, stating familiarity with FINRA rules and SEC guidelines and describing how it navigates review with legal and compliance departments.
Its published process builds review checkpoints in at script, edit and final cut, so approvals are scheduled stages rather than a final hurdle. The part worth noting is its advertising work: it publishes that it creates ad content designed to pass compliance review, including disclosures, disclaimers and properly formatted risk language. Paid financial advertising is where unreviewed claims cause the most trouble, and an agency that writes for that constraint up front saves rounds later. Its clients span banks, investment firms and independent advisors.
Who it is less suited for. Teams that need the number before the meeting, since nothing is published on price.
Vidico is the premium end of the fintech bracket, and the one agency here selling capacity rather than projects. Its finance page publishes plans starting around $5,000 a month covering strategy, scripting, animation, live action and editing, with unused budget rolling over, and it offers to write your first script free before any engagement.
What it brings to a regulated brief is depth of bench rather than a stated compliance process: 40+ specialist disciplines including finance-fluent strategists, working as your production team, with 920+ brands behind it. For a fintech or insurtech company producing continuously rather than occasionally, a monthly plan absorbs the extra rounds that compliance adds more gracefully than a per-project quote does.
Who it is less suited for. A single compliance-heavy film, since the model rewards continuous volume.
B2W is a finance and fintech animation studio with the strongest named institutional list on this page: Citibank, OnDeck, Tricolor, F.H. Cann & Associates and Microsoft among 400+ brands. It describes its work as regulated product animation for banks, lenders, wealth managers and fintech brands.
The published case studies are the evidence worth reading. The Tricolor piece explains AI-driven credit scoring for credit-invisible and unscorable consumers, holding the technical accuracy investors and regulators expect. The F.H. Cann work explains a collections process, where tone carries as much weight as compliance does. It also covers benefits explanation, including 401(k) and insurance enrolment, which sits directly on the insurance brief.
Who it is less suited for. Live-action advisor and executive video, since the studio works in animation.
Magnet Media is the longest-running operation on this list and the one built for a programme rather than a project. It publishes 25 years of experience across banks, asset managers, hedge funds, insurers and capital markets, and works from New York.
Its stated position on review is the right one: compliance, legal and regulatory review is built into the production process from day one rather than treated as an afterthought, which it connects to fewer revision cycles and faster approvals. The scope is broader than video alone, covering thought leadership series, executive visibility, branded storytelling, testimonials, product explainers and documentary-style films, plus social programmes and influencer campaigns run inside the same compliance frameworks.
Who it is less suited for. A team buying one asset, since the model is built around an ongoing content programme.
Studio Center produces explainer, testimonial and training video for insurance agencies, and is a reasonable option where the brief is internal education and agent enablement rather than customer-facing marketing.
Media Bar Productions publishes a financial services video review guide, which is unusual: most agencies in this category write about their work rather than about the review process their clients have to run.
Shootsta suits insurers producing internal and agent-facing video at volume, with a subscription from US$1,000 a month and a 48-hour editing turnaround, though shoots are priced separately and the term is annual.
If the budget has to be approved before review begins and must not move afterwards, start with Apollo Studio. The all-in figure is the one commercial term that holds when a compliance reader adds a round nobody scheduled.
If you are producing advisor or agent video at volume, Lightswitch Video has done more of it than anyone else here, and its script-and-shot-list-first process is designed for exactly that approval chain.
If your reviewers cite rules by number, Motif Motion has written down how it works with SEC and FINRA review, and it publishes a rate card, which is a rare combination.
If the brief is insurance specifically and the budget is modest, Gisteo publishes a price and a timeline for it, with your review named as a separate block.
If you need the cost and the schedule before you can get the project approved internally, Epipheo publishes both, by format.
Worth separating, because the two briefs share a compliance department and almost nothing else. An insurtech company is explaining software to a business buyer, so the work is product explanation and the difficulty is making an abstract workflow clear. A carrier, agency or broker is explaining cover, claims and trust to a customer, often under state insurance advertising rules that govern what can be claimed and how it must be disclosed.
On this list, the agencies with the most carrier-side evidence are Wyzowl, with 300+ videos for 50+ insurance companies, Lightswitch Video, with more than 1,000 agent-focused pieces for a national insurance provider, Gisteo, which addresses carriers, agencies and brokers directly, and Lifetime Media, which writes for disclosure and risk language in advertising. Studio Center is worth a look for agent training and internal communication.
Ask any of them the same question first: who on your side has produced work under the advertising rules in the states where we write business, and can we see it.
Published figures in this category are rarer than in general B2B, and they are not quoted on the same basis, so compare the structure before the number.
Four agencies here publish something. Apollo Studio publishes $5,000 to $50,000+, all in, with most projects between $15,000 and $30,000. Epipheo publishes $10,000 to $45,000 as typical for a financial services explainer, split into 2D animation at $15,000 to $45,000 and motion graphics at $10,000 to $35,000. Motif Motion publishes per minute, at $4,500 to $7,000 and $7,000 to $11,000 depending on tier. Gisteo publishes from $3,500 per 60 seconds, or $4,000 with scriptwriting. Vidico publishes monthly plans from around $5,000. The rest quote per project.
Because the number of review rounds is the variable you cannot forecast. A script read by a compliance officer, a legal reviewer and a product owner attracts comments from three directions, and a disclosure added late can change the voiceover, the on-screen text and the runtime at once. A per-minute or starting figure prices the first version. An all-in figure prices the project.
Disclosures and the re-recording they cause. A claim that survives the first review but not the second means the script changes after the voiceover is cut, and in animation that means re-timing the sequence the text sat over. The second driver is the number of regimes in play at once: a product sold through advisers into several states can attract state insurance advertising rules, FINRA communication requirements and the firm's own policy in the same review.
The agencies that do well in this category are not the ones that say they understand compliance. They are the ones that have written down what they do about it, because that writing is itself evidence that review is a planned stage rather than a surprise.
So shortlist on three published things: what the number includes, what has actually been produced under regulatory constraint and for whom, and what the agency does when a reviewer changes a claim after the edit is locked. An agency with clear answers to all three will cost less in the end than a lower quote that treats your compliance department as your problem.
The specialists split by which side of the market you sit on. For carriers, agencies and brokers, Wyzowl publishes 300+ videos for 50+ insurance companies, Lightswitch Video states more than 1,000 agent-focused pieces for a national insurance provider, and Gisteo addresses carriers, agencies, brokers and claims teams with a published price from $3,500 per 60 seconds. For insurtech and financial software companies explaining a product, Apollo Studio works exclusively in B2B software and tech with a published fintech practice and an all-in price, and B2W publishes animation work for lenders and benefits providers.
Several publish an actual process rather than a claim. Motif Motion publishes a method built for SEC and FINRA review: claims kept easy to check, room left for disclosures, approved wording locked once cleared. Lifetime Media states familiarity with FINRA rules and SEC guidelines and builds review checkpoints at script, edit and final cut. Lightswitch Video puts script and shot list in front of compliance before the shoot. Magnet Media builds legal and regulatory review in from day one. Epipheo states that review should be planned into the schedule from day one, and Gisteo quotes its timeline as 4 to 6 weeks plus your review.
Where it is published, the range is roughly $3,500 to $50,000 depending on format and length. Gisteo publishes from $3,500 per 60 seconds, or $4,000 with scriptwriting. Epipheo publishes $10,000 to $45,000 as typical, with motion graphics at $10,000 to $35,000 and 2D animation at $15,000 to $45,000. Motif Motion publishes $4,500 to $11,000 per minute across two tiers. Apollo Studio publishes $5,000 to $50,000+ all in, most projects between $15,000 and $30,000. Ask what is included before comparing, since an all-in figure and a starting figure are different offers.
Production is commonly four to eight weeks, and your compliance review sits on top of that. Gisteo publishes 4 to 6 weeks plus your review, which is the clearest statement of the distinction. Epipheo publishes five to six weeks for animation and motion graphics and six to twelve for live action. Apollo Studio publishes about three weeks from kickoff to final cut. The variable is not production: it is how many reviewers read the script and whether they read it before or after something has been animated.
Almost always, and the obligation depends on who you are. Broker-dealer communications fall under FINRA rules on communications with the public, some of which must be filed before first use. Registered investment advisers are governed by the SEC marketing rule, which sets conditions on testimonials, endorsements and performance claims. Insurance advertising is regulated at state level, with rules on claims and disclosures that vary by state. None of that is advice for your situation: the practical point is that the review is a scheduled stage with its own calendar time, and your agency should be planning around it rather than discovering it.
The buyer and the job. Insurtech video explains software to an insurance business: underwriting platforms, claims automation, broker tools. The hard part is making an abstract workflow clear, and the review is largely about accuracy of product claims. Insurance video explains cover, claims or a brand to a customer or an agent, and the review is about advertising rules, disclosures and what may be promised. Agencies strong at one are not automatically strong at the other, which is why the list above separates them.
More than the two common in general B2B work. Script and cut each attract their own comments, and a compliance reviewer will comment on wording a marketing reviewer would pass. Get the included number in writing along with the cost of an additional round, because that figure tells you whether the agency has priced review in or expects to bill it. An all-in quote covering revisions removes the question entirely, which is why it is weighted heaviest above.
Sometimes, and sometimes the opposite. Animation gives you full control of what appears on screen, so disclosures can be placed and timed exactly, and nothing unintended is captured the way it can be on a shoot. The cost is that late changes are more expensive: a claim rewritten after animation has started means re-timing the sequence the text sat over. The practical answer is to front-load review in animation, which is what the script-first processes published by Gisteo, Lightswitch and Motif Motion are designed to do.
Match it to what the video has to explain. If the video explains a policy, a claims process or your brand to customers or agents, insurance experience shortens the brief and reduces the risk of an advertising misstep. If it explains a platform to an insurance or financial buyer, product complexity experience matters more, because the common failure there is not misreading the industry, it is failing to make the software make sense. Weigh a strong regulated software portfolio above a thin insurance one in that case.
Five things. What the quoted number includes, specifically whether revisions are inside it. How many review rounds are assumed, and what an extra one costs. Whether your compliance team sees the script before anything is produced. What has been produced under regulatory constraint before, with named examples. And whether the published turnaround includes or excludes your review, since those are very different schedules wearing the same number.
