What Final Expense Leads Cost Per Issued Policy

A final expense lead bought at $35 costs about $298 per issued policy and about $382 per policy still drafting at month 13, if your funnel runs at the rates the best-ranking pages assume. That is eight to eleven times the invoice price, and the two numbers on the right are the only ones that decide whether the channel made money.

Every page on this query stops at cost per lead. The strongest one we found stops at cost per written application. Neither event pays anybody. The carrier’s issue decision and the month-13 draft are what turn a lead receipt into income, and this page runs the arithmetic all the way through both.

What this page covers, and what it does not

This page is about cost per outcome. It is not a ranked list of lead vendors and it does not tell you which company to buy from. This site is published by Cranfer Technologies LLC, which also sells a CRM and dialer to the people reading this, so a ranked list from us would not be worth much — the reasoning is on our about page.

This is the final expense hub inside the wider insurance leads section, which covers the other lead categories on the same cost-per-outcome basis. Five child pages carry the detail this hub compresses: live transfers, direct mail, aged leads, vendor auditing and exclusive vs shared. Each is linked in context below and indexed at the bottom.

Two things are deliberately out of scope. Dialing mechanics and pacing live in insurance dialers. The full picture is in TCPA compliance for insurance call centers; the compliance section here covers only the parts that change a number in the arithmetic.

The 2026 price bands, with a source on every row

Every published number below is attributed. The right-hand column matters more than the price: a vendor’s own order page is a price, and a range assembled by a publisher is an estimate. Most content in this vertical mixes the two silently.

The most useful thing in that table is a contradiction. Lead Heroes, a company that runs its own call centre and publishes its prices, sells final expense telemarketed leads at $7 to $10. The Insurance Leads Guide puts the same product at $25 to $60. That is a three-to-six-fold spread on one lead type, and it is not a rounding difference. One number is a price list with a twenty-lead minimum. The other is a band a publisher assembled from somewhere it does not name. When a vendor tells you the market rate for telemarketed final expense is $40, the honest reply is a question about which of those two numbers they are quoting.

Lead Heroes also publishes its own mail arithmetic, which is worth reproducing because it is a vendor doing the division in public: a 1,000-piece drop at roughly $450 returning 10 cards at a 1% response rate is about $45 per returned card. That is the correct shape of the calculation. Cost per mail lead is an output of a response rate, not a price you agree to. The direct mail page works through what happens when a vendor offers to fix that price instead.

The aged ladder, and the conflict behind it

The most complete public price-and-performance table for aged final expense leads is published by Aged Lead Store on 2026-03-13. It is also published by a company whose business is selling aged leads, and it should be read that way. Its stated basis is “proprietary pricing, conversion, and customer data from 24+ years of operation serving 40,000+ customers across 44 states.” No sample size, no date range, no confidence interval. That is a vendor-reported claim, reproduced here as a claim.

Read rows two and three against each other. The bands overlap — 8-to-30 days and 15-to-30 days describe the same leads — and the prices differ by a factor of three to ten while the contact rates differ by five points. A table that prices the same lead at $5 and at $1.75 in adjacent rows is describing two different purchase channels, probably retail versus bulk file, without saying so. That is not dishonest, but it is the reason the “aged leads cost $2 to $12” ranges you see elsewhere are not wrong either. They are quoting a different quantity. The aged leads page prices the labor that the whole ladder ignores.

The five stages every competing page collapses

A final expense lead passes through five gates before it pays you, and each one has its own denominator:

1. Purchased → contacted. A live human on the phone. Not a dial, not a voicemail.
2. Contacted → presented. You got through the door, physical or telephonic, and quoted.
3. Presented → application submitted. Signed application, bank draft authorised.
4. Application → policy ISSUED. The carrier’s decision. In simplified issue this is a real gate, not a formality.
5. Issued → still drafting at month 13. The only stage that determines whether you keep the money you were already paid.

Cost per lead divides by the first number. Cost per acquisition divides by the third. Both leave the two decisions that actually cost you money outside the calculation.

Worked example: 100 exclusive internet leads at $35

Every rate in this run is an assumption with a stated origin. Two of them are not sourced at all, and are marked. Substitute your own.

$3,500 of lead spend. Roughly 11.7 issued policies. Roughly 9.2 of them still paying a year later. Blended, 11.7% of the leads you bought became an issued policy and 9.2% became a policy you got to keep. The gap between those last two rows is 22% of the issued policies and $84 of cost on every one that survives, and it appears on no competing page we could find.

Note what the arithmetic does to a familiar claim. A “16% close rate” sounds strong. Run 16% of contacted leads through an 87% issue rate and a 78% persistency and you have kept 68% of the policies you thought you sold.

Find your own row

Rather than argue about whose funnel is right, here is the same calculation at three blended rates against three prices. Blended rate means issued policies divided by leads purchased — the number you can compute from your own carrier statements without trusting anybody’s benchmark. Both columns assume 78% persistency.

A $70 live transfer converting at 4% blended costs $2,244 per kept policy. Hold that number; the next section says what a kept policy is worth.

What an issued final expense policy is actually worth

This is the one place where a real industry figure exists, and almost nobody in this vertical uses it.

LIMRA and the Life Insurers Council published their Final Expense Survey Report on 2025-06-12, covering 2024 sales reported by 28 life insurance companies. Two figures in that release let you derive the number every lead ROI calculator guesses at:

• U.S. final expense new annualized premium: $1.05 billion, up 16% year over year.
• Policies sold by survey participants: 1.06 million, up 10%.

Divide: about $991 of annualized premium per final expense policy. Because both published figures are rounded to three significant digits, the honest band is $981 to $1,000. LIMRA states plainly that the survey “is not a comprehensive view of the U.S. final expense market” — it is 28 carriers, not the industry — so treat $990 as a well-sourced planning figure, not a census.

It cross-checks. The same release reports that 85% of those sales were simplified issue with an average face amount of $14,535, and the remaining 15% guaranteed issue at $9,786. Roughly $990 a year is about $82 a month, which is the right neighbourhood for $14,535 of simplified-issue whole life on a mid-sixties life. The two published figures are consistent with each other, which is more than can be said for most numbers in this category.

On commission, Redbird Agents (published 2025-02-03) puts first-year final expense contracts at 80% to 120% of annual premium, with renewals of 5% to 10% after year one. At a 100% contract and $990 of premium, one issued policy is $990 of first-year commission.

Run the worked example through that:

• 11.7 issued policies × $990 = $11,583 of first-year commission booked on $3,500 of lead spend. A 3.3x gross return before anything is clawed back.
• The 22% that fail before month 13 are the problem, and how much of a problem depends entirely on when they fail. More on that below.
• Over five years, a policy that persists is worth $990 plus four years of renewals at the 7.5% midpoint of Redbird’s band — $990 + (4 × $74.25) = $1,287. A policy that lapses in month five, after a nine-month advance, leaves you holding $412.50 of the $742.50 you were paid. Persistency roughly triples the lifetime value of an issued policy.

Breakeven, stated as a rate you can check

Lead prices below are taken from the bands in the price table above: $1.20 sits in Aged Lead Store’s 31–60-day range, $18 near the bottom of the $15–$35 shared-web band, $35 near the bottom of the $30–$80+ exclusive band, and $70 and $120 at the middle and top of the $40–$120+ live-transfer band. At $990 of first-year commission, the blended issued-per-lead rate you need just to get your lead money back:

The right-hand column assumes 22% of issued policies fail before month 13, that they lapse on average in month five, and that the carrier advanced nine months — so $330 of unearned advance comes back per failure, an average haircut of $73 per issued policy.

The haircut is smaller than most agents expect, and that is worth being honest about. In year one, a chargeback moves your breakeven by roughly eight percent of itself. What persistency actually destroys is the renewal stream in years two through five, which is where the 3x lifetime difference above lives. What makes or breaks your first year is the issue rate and the close rate. What makes or breaks your fifth is persistency.

The advance is a loan, and it compounds while you scale

Carriers commonly advance six to nine months of first-year commission at issue and claw it back if the policy lapses inside that window (Redbird Agents, 2025-02-03). Terms are carrier-specific and product-specific — New Horizons Marketing (2022-03-28) describes guaranteed issue final expense carrying a 100% chargeback if the client dies within the first two years, while level benefit plans typically let the agent keep the commission. Read your own carrier’s schedule; do not generalise from this page or from your upline.

What nobody publishes is the shape of the liability when you scale. Take the worked example run monthly: $3,500 of leads, 11.7 issued policies, $990 of premium, a 100% contract, nine months advanced at $742.50 per policy, earning straight-line at $82.50 a month.

The right-hand column is the amount you would owe the carriers if the entire in-force book lapsed tomorrow. It is not what you expect to pay — the expected draw at a 22% failure rate is far smaller. It is the ceiling on your debit balance, it stops growing at month nine, and at steady state it is 12.4 months of lead spend. An agent scaling lead purchases on advanced commission is carrying that number whether or not they have ever calculated it. This is the mechanism by which a record production month becomes a five-figure debit balance four months later, and agency unit economics is where it stops being an individual problem.

Contact rate is a decaying asset

The vendor table above reports contact falling from 45–60% at 0–7 days to 10–18% at 85+ days. Take it as directional and remember who published it. Whatever you paid for a lead, you paid for a contact probability that is spending itself down every day it sits.

The oldest hard evidence on this is not from insurance. Oldroyd, McElheran and Elkington audited 2,241 US companies with test web leads for Harvard Business Review in March 2011 and found an average response time of 42 hours, 23% never responding at all, and firms that made contact within an hour roughly seven times more likely to qualify the lead than firms that waited even one hour longer. That comparator matters and is usually dropped: the finding is about the first hour against the second, not about the first hour against everybody. That is B2B web forms from 2011, not final expense in 2026, and it should not be quoted as if it were. It is the largest audited dataset on lead response time we could find, and we found nothing published since that points the other way.

The practical version: a lead you cannot act on within minutes is a lead you overpaid for. The exclusive vs shared page shows the arithmetic where speed beats exclusivity outright.

The compliance line items that move the arithmetic

Only the parts that change a number belong here. The rest is on the TCPA compliance hub.

One-to-one consent is not the law, and paying a premium for it is buying a rule that does not exist. The FCC’s 2023 order would have required consent to one identified seller at a time. The Eleventh Circuit vacated that part of the order in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277, on 2025-01-24, and the FCC formally deleted the language by final rule published in the Federal Register on 2025-08-29. The error persists because the rule was real and briefly had an effective date, so 2024-vintage content was correct when written and was never re-checked. A vendor charging extra for “one-to-one compliant” final expense leads in 2026 is charging for compliance with a vacated rule.

The consent record is part of what you are buying, and the buyer can end up the defendant. In Ward v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., the District of Massachusetts certified two TCPA classes on 2026-06-12 — a 20,000-plus member prerecorded-voice class and a 7,000-plus member Do Not Call class — against the lead buyer, over leads that travelled from a comparison website through an aggregator and a broker before a fourth company placed the calls. The court treated whether the lead site’s form could constitute consent as a question common to the whole class. A vendor’s assurance that leads are “TCPA compliant” is a marketing representation, not a defence. Price the retained consent artifact — form language, URL, timestamp, IP, seller disclosure as the consumer saw it — as part of the lead. A vendor who cannot produce it is selling an uncosted liability. The vendor audit page turns that into a test with a sample size.

State calling rules are real, and who they bind is not what the blogs say. Florida is the example worth working through, because almost every published version of it is wrong twice.

• The 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. window in the called person’s time zone, and the cap of no more than three commercial telephone solicitation calls from any number to a person over a 24-hour period on the same subject matter, are at Fla. Stat. § 501.616(6)(a) and (6)(b) — in the Florida Telemarketing Act, not in § 501.059, which is where most content cites them. That is the first error and it is only a citation error.
• The second one changes the answer. Section 501.616(6) binds “a commercial telephone seller or salesperson,” and § 501.604(8) exempts from that entire part “any licensed insurance broker, agent, customer representative, or solicitor when soliciting within the scope of his or her license.” An agent soliciting within the scope of that license is outside the 8 p.m. cutoff and outside the three-call cap. The telemarketing room that produced the lead generally is not.
• What does reach the licensed agent in Florida is § 501.059, which carries no insurance exemption. Section 501.059(8)(a) provides that a person may not make or knowingly allow to be made an unsolicited telephonic sales call involving an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers without the called party’s prior express written consent. Section 501.059(4) bars calls to numbers on the state’s current quarterly no-sales-solicitation listing. Section 501.059(10) is the private right of action: actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, which a court may in its discretion increase to not more than three times that amount for a willful or knowing violation.
• The definition is where the money is. Section 501.059(1) excludes from “unsolicited” a call made in response to an express request by the called party — which is exactly what a lead form is asserted to be, and exactly what the vendor’s retained artifact has to prove.
• Maryland works differently again. Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-3201 provides that a person may not violate the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule or the TCPA, and § 14-3202 provides the greater of $500 for each violation or actual damages, plus reasonable attorney’s fees. A federal claim becomes a state claim with fee-shifting attached. It imposes no calling window of its own; it imports the federal one.

So the arithmetic consequence is narrower than the usual version, and it lands on the vendor before it lands on the agent. A Florida call room running 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. has one fewer hour of the best block in the final expense day than the federal 9 p.m. stop allows, and that shows up in the supply and the price of the leads it sells rather than in the buyer’s own dial plan. What hits the buyer directly is the consent artifact: if the dialing is automated, § 501.059(8)(a) wants prior express written consent on file, and the only thing that produces it is the record the vendor hands over. That is a line item in the price of a lead, not a line item in a calling schedule. Florida and Maryland are the only two states quoted here, because they are the only two whose statutes we read this cycle, and this page publishes no state figure it has not read in the statute.

One jurisdictional caveat governs everything above. Since McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. ___ (2025-06-20), district courts interpret the TCPA independently rather than deferring to the FCC’s reading. The Fifth Circuit has already rejected the FCC’s prior-express-*written*-consent requirement outright in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX (February 2026), holding the statute demands only prior express consent, oral or written. That binds Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The FCC rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) remains on the books and remains enforceable everywhere else, and written consent is the prudent posture in all fifty states regardless of which rule a given court applies. A sentence beginning “under FCC rules” now needs a map attached to it.

Not legal advice

This site is published by Cranfer Technologies LLC, which also builds InsuraCentral. We are not a law firm, nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship, and nothing here substitutes for counsel who knows your business and the states you call into. Telemarketing law is no longer uniform: a rule settled in one circuit may be the opposite one state over, and more than fifteen states now have telemarketing statutes stricter than federal law, several of which define automated dialing broadly enough to cover equipment that is lawful federally. This section describes our understanding as of the date below only. Software — ours included — can scrub a list, store a consent record and log an opt-out. It cannot create consent a consumer never gave and it cannot repair a lead source that was bad before you bought it.

Last reviewed: 2026-07-29.

“Closed” and “issued” are different events

In simplified issue final expense, the sale at the kitchen table is a conditional event. Between the signature and the commission sit the carrier’s underwriting engines: a prescription-history check through a service such as Milliman IntelliScript, an MIB Group record search, and in many cases a point-of-sale phone interview that produces a decision while the agent is still in the house. Any of those can convert a level-benefit application into a graded, modified or guaranteed issue offer at a different premium — or into a decline.

This is why product type changes the arithmetic and not just the pitch:

• A level benefit application that gets knocked down to graded or modified is still an issued policy, but at a different premium and usually a different persistency profile.
• A guaranteed issue placement carries no medical underwriting gate, so what is left between application and issue is paperwork and payment rather than a decline decision — and, per New Horizons Marketing, it commonly carries a two-year death chargeback that level plans do not.
• A point-of-sale decision collapses the gap between application and issue to minutes, which is good for cash flow and brutal for anyone whose close-rate benchmark was measured on applications rather than issues.

Two agents with identical close rates and identical lead spend can therefore have materially different issue rates, purely because of which carriers and which products they hold. We have no published figure for how far apart, and would not invent one — but the mechanism means an application-based benchmark borrowed from another agent is not comparable to yours, and the ratio in your own carrier portal is.

When the right purchase is zero leads

For a meaningful share of agents reading this, the correct action this month is to buy nothing. The conditions are checkable:

• Fewer than six contact attempts across ten days on the leads already in your pipeline. More volume spreads the same effort thinner and produces a worse number, not a better one.
• No dated dispositions. If you cannot pull a list of every lead bought in the last 60 days with the date and outcome of each attempt, you have no denominator and cannot evaluate any purchase you make.
• A fresh-lead contact rate below the bottom of the vendor-reported band. Aged Lead Store’s own figure for 0–7-day leads is 45–60%; a vendor’s number for its own product is the friendliest number available, so running well under it points at something upstream — the data, the caller ID, the time of day — and buying more of it buys more of the same breakage.
• No 13-month persistency number of your own. You are optimising the wrong end of the funnel.

One more that people find harder to hear. Aged leads sold to an agent without a multi-line dialer and the volume to justify it are a labor arbitrage with no labor behind it; the arithmetic is on the aged leads page and the conclusion is that they lose money for most of the people currently being sold them.

The numbers we could not source

This section exists because the alternative is laundering an estimate into a fact, which is the house failure mode of this category.

The 87% application-to-issue rate. We could not find a primary source for a final expense application-to-issue rate anywhere. The 85–90% figure circulating in 2026 lead content traces to a single blog (InsureLeads, updated 2026-04-16) that presents it as a target benchmark with no sample size, no methodology and no citation — alongside contact, presentation and application rates presented the same way. LIMRA’s final expense survey reports sales, not applications. We used 87% in the worked example because it is the number the competing pages use and we wanted the comparison to be apples to apples. It is an input, not a fact. Yours is sitting in your carrier’s agent portal right now.

The 78% 13-month persistency. The closest primary source we found is LIMRA’s MarketFacts (July 2024, Terry and Moussa), which reports that a survey “confirmed the majority of traditional WL writers have a 13-month and 25-month persistency rate of over 75 percent.” That is a carrier-level statistic across all traditional whole life, not a final-expense number and not an agent-level number. The widely repeated “LIMRA says final expense persistency is 75–82%” does not trace to any LIMRA publication we could locate. 78% is our planning assumption, chosen to sit just above the only defensible floor we can cite. It is labelled as an assumption everywhere it appears on this page.

The 3.51% direct mail response rate. It appears in final expense content constantly and it is a general direct-mail industry figure, not a final expense one. The only final-expense-specific response rate we found from a named practitioner is 1% to 1.25% for standard life-insurance mailers (The DIG Agency, 2023-01-02), corroborated by Lead Heroes using 1% in its own published cost-per-lead arithmetic. Anyone quoting 3.51% for a final expense drop is repeating a statistic out of context, and at that rate your mail budget is off by a factor of three.

Close rates by lead type. The familiar table — live transfer 18–30%, telemarketing 12–22%, exclusive web 10–18%, aged 4–10% — comes from InsureLeads (2026-04-16) with no methodology or sample size disclosed. Reported here as a claim, attributed, and not used as an input anywhere in the arithmetic above.

Oklahoma’s calling rules. An earlier draft of this page carried section-level citations to the Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act for an 8 p.m. cutoff, a three-call cap and a damages provision. The substance is reported consistently by named legal commentators, but we could not open the statutory text itself, and the one source that supplied the section numbers also asserts an insurance-agent exemption we could not corroborate — which, if true, would change the answer the way Florida’s does. A state calling rule that turns on whether it binds the reader is not a rule worth publishing on a secondary source, so it is out until we can read it.

Lapse timing. Nobody publishes the month-by-month distribution of early final expense lapses, which is the single input that determines how much of a chargeback the 22% failure rate actually produces. We assumed month five and said so. If your carrier will give you your own lapse timing, that number is worth more than everything else on this page.

What to do Monday

Four things, in order, none of which requires buying anything.

1. Pull your own issue rate. Applications submitted in the last 90 days, and how many issued. That single ratio moves your cost per policy more than any price negotiation you will ever win.
2. Pull your own 13-month persistency. Policies issued 13 or more months ago, and how many are still drafting. If the carrier will not give it to you, count it by hand from your own records — at final expense volumes this is an afternoon.
3. Compute cost per kept policy for each lead source separately. Total spend on that source, divided by policies from that source still drafting at month 13. Sources that looked identical on cost per lead will not look identical here. That is the whole point.
4. Set your maximum defensible lead price from the breakeven table above using your own blended rate, and treat it as a ceiling rather than a target.

Steps two and three need one thing you may not have: a record per policy carrying an issue date, a draft date and the lead source it came from. A spreadsheet with those three columns does the job and costs nothing, which is the starting position in how to choose an insurance CRM as well.

Disclosure

InsuraCentral is built by Cranfer Technologies LLC, the company that publishes InsuraCentral. We are naming our own product below. Weigh that accordingly — the full statement of the conflict is on our about page.

If you would rather it live in the system you already dial from, InsuraCentral attaches policy records to the client record, which is the mechanical step steps two and three need. It does not measure persistency for you, and whether the field you need is the draft date specifically is a question to answer during a trial rather than after a purchase. The honest trigger to pay for any CRM is a constraint you can point at. Below roughly four to six issued applications a month, a subscription of any kind is a real drag on already-thin margins, and that is true even though the company publishing this page sells one.

The rest of this cluster

• Final expense live transfer leads: the contract terms that decide whether $80 a call pays
• Final expense direct mail leads: you are buying a drop, not a lead
• Aged final expense leads: why the lead price is the smallest number in the equation
• The 90-day lead vendor audit: nine tests that tell you whether to renew
• Exclusive vs shared final expense leads: the premium is a promise until you test it

The cost per issued policy calculator runs every equation on this page against your own inputs, with the defaults above pre-loaded and each one labelled with its source.

Sources

Primary sources are linked directly. Vendor pages, and pages whose figures we are reproducing as claims rather than endorsing, are marked and carry rel="nofollow".

• LIMRA / Life Insurers Council — "Final Expense Insurance New Annualized Premium Increased 16% in 2024," published 2025-06-12; 2024 sales data from 28 life insurance companies. limra.com
• LIMRA MarketFacts — Terry & Moussa, "Whole Life Insurance: Emerging Challenges in 2024," July 2024; source of the "over 75 percent" 13-month persistency statement for traditional whole life writers. limra.com
• Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. 2025-01-24) — vacating the one-to-one consent requirement. Slip opinion (PDF)
• Federal Register, 2025-08-29 — FCC final rule deleting the vacated consent language and restoring the prior definition at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9). federalregister.gov
• McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. ___ (2025-06-20). justia.com
• Ward v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (D. Mass.) — two TCPA classes certified against the lead buyer, 2026-06-12, as reported by Agency Checklists 2026-06-20. agencychecklists.com
• Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc. (5th Cir., February 2026) — rejecting the FCC's prior-express-written-consent requirement in the Fifth Circuit. Nixon Peabody alert, 2026-02-27
• Fla. Stat. § 501.616 — calling hours at (6)(a), three-call cap at (6)(b); the prohibition runs against "a commercial telephone seller or salesperson." Statutory text read 2026-07-29. flsenate.gov
• Fla. Stat. § 501.604(8) — exemption from the Florida Telemarketing Act for "any licensed insurance broker, agent, customer representative, or solicitor when soliciting within the scope of his or her license." Statutory text read 2026-07-29. flsenate.gov
• Fla. Stat. § 501.059 — automated-system consent at (8)(a), no-sales-solicitation listing at (4), private right of action at (10); no insurance exemption appears in the section. Statutory text read 2026-07-29. flsenate.gov
• Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 14-3201 and 14-3202 — federal TCPA/TSR violations as Maryland violations; the greater of $500 for each violation or actual damages, plus reasonable attorney's fees. Statutory text read 2026-07-29. § 14-3201 · § 14-3202
• Oldroyd, McElheran & Elkington — "The Short Life of Online Sales Leads," Harvard Business Review, March 2011; audit of 2,241 US companies. hbr.org
• Redbird Agents — "Average Final Expense Commission Levels for Independent Agents," published 2025-02-03; source of the 80–120% first-year band, 5–10% renewals, and six-to-nine-month advance. redbirdagents.com
• New Horizons Marketing — chargeback structures including the two-year guaranteed-issue death chargeback, published 2022-03-28. newhorizonsmktg.com
• Aged Lead Store — aged price ladder and vendor-reported contact rates by lead age, published 2026-03-13. Sells aged leads. agedleadstore.com
• ALB Senior Markets — direct mail per-thousand and fixed-price-per-lead order page, checked 2026-07-29. albinsurance.com
• Lead Heroes — telemarketed final expense pricing, mail campaign minimums and the vendor's own cost-per-returned-card arithmetic, checked 2026-07-29. leadheroes.com
• Insurance Leads Guide — 2026 price bands by lead type; no methodology disclosed. insuranceleadsguide.com
• The DIG Agency (David Duford) — per-thousand mail pricing and the 1%–1.25% final expense response rate, published 2023-01-02. davidduford.com
• InsureLeads — close-rate and funnel benchmarks, updated 2026-04-16; reproduced here as an unsourced claim, not as data. getinsureleads.com

Prices and regulatory statements on this page were checked on 2026-07-29. Lead pricing moves and telemarketing law is moving faster; if that date is more than six months behind you, assume something has changed.