Comparing the Top Agency M&A Advisors: MarshBerry, Sica Fletcher, Reagan Consulting, OPTIS Partners

Most principals select an M&A advisor on referral, brand recognition, or the partner who pitched them most aggressively. That is the wrong process for a decision that will determine the buyer pool you reach, the structure you negotiate, and the seven-figure outcome on the other side. Advisor choice drives outcome variance more than principals realize, by 0.5x to 1.5x on headline multiple in some transactions, and substantially more on structure quality, earn-out terms, and the post-close experience.

This guide is an opinion-based comparison of the four major firms (MarshBerry, Sica Fletcher, Reagan Consulting, and OPTIS Partners) plus a section on credible boutique alternatives. The intent is operator-perspective, not endorsement. Each of the four major firms is excellent at certain transactions and not the right fit for others. The closing framework is a six-step selection process you can run in sixty days.

Why advisor selection matters

The advisor brings the buyers. The buyer pool the advisor surfaces is the buyer pool you negotiate against. A firm with deep PE-rollup relationships will surface PE rollups; a firm with strategic regional relationships will surface those buyers. If your agency profile is best served by one buyer category and your advisor specializes in another, the mismatch shows up as fewer competitive bids and a weaker negotiating position.

Quality of buyer pool. A serious advisor for a $5M revenue agency will surface 8-15 qualified bidders in a structured process. A weaker process surfaces three. The price differential between best-bid in a 10-bidder process and best-bid in a 3-bidder process is typically 0.75x to 1.5x in EBITDA multiple, which on a $5M-revenue agency at $1.5M adjusted EBITDA is meaningful real money.

Negotiation outcomes and structure quality. Headline multiple is the marketing number. Structure determines the actual after-tax outcome. Earn-out metric definitions, escrow holdbacks, indemnification caps, rollover equity terms, non-compete scope: every line of the LOI and definitive agreement is negotiated. Strong advisors negotiate the structure as hard as they negotiate the price. Weak advisors deliver the headline number and let the lawyers sort out the rest.

Typical fee structures. Industry standard is 1-2% of transaction value with minimums of $150,000-$400,000 depending on firm and deal size. Some firms charge a retainer ($25,000-$75,000) credited against the success fee. Sophisticated sellers negotiate fee tiers (lower percentage above a threshold price) to align advisor incentive with outsized outcomes.

Advisor vs. broker. A broker brings a buyer. An advisor runs a process. The economics, the buyer pool, and the structural quality differ materially. For any transaction above $5M enterprise value, pay for an advisor.

The four major advisors

MarshBerry

Profile. Founded 1981. Headquartered in Cleveland with offices in multiple cities. Among the largest agency M&A advisors by deal volume, particularly active in the $10M-$100M EV range. Closed 80+ transactions in 2024-2025. Significant presence in research and benchmarking; the MarshBerry quarterly market updates are widely cited and shape principal expectations on multiples.

Specialty. Mid-to-large independent P&C agencies, particularly multi-state operations and agencies with specialty commercial content. MarshBerry has built deep relationships across the PE-rollup buyer ecosystem and has been a default option for principals targeting that buyer category.

Buyer relationships. Broadest PE-rollup relationships in the industry. Strong strategic regional buyer relationships. Active across the full buyer spectrum but with PE-rollup as the center of gravity.

Approach. Process-driven. Structured timelines, formal information memoranda, competitive bidding processes. Communication style is institutional: multiple team members involved, clear handoffs, documented progress. Some principals report this as professional and reassuring; others report it as transactional and impersonal.

Fee structure. Success fees in the 1.0-1.5% range typical for transactions above $20M EV; higher percentage for smaller transactions. Retainer typically required.

Best fit. Mid-to-large agencies, $5M revenue and up, particularly those targeting PE-rollup buyers and willing to run a structured competitive process over a 6-9 month timeline.

Considerations. Some smaller-agency principals report feeling under-resourced inside MarshBerry’s portfolio. The senior bandwidth the pitch implies is not always the bandwidth that shows up in the day-to-day. Verify senior partner involvement in the engagement letter, not just the pitch.

Sica Fletcher

Profile. Founded 2014. Smaller than MarshBerry by deal volume but with rapidly growing market share. Closed 60+ transactions in 2024-2025. Built a reputation for transactional rigor and aggressive negotiation on behalf of sellers. The Sica Fletcher transaction database is a primary reference source for industry multiples.

Specialty. Independent P&C agencies across the size spectrum, with particular strength in specialty commercial and program business. Reputation as a seller-aggressive advisor; the firm’s negotiating posture in LOIs and definitive agreements is widely noted by buyers.

Buyer relationships. Strong across PE-rollups and strategic regionals. Reputation for surfacing competitive bidder pools rather than relying on a small set of preferred buyers.

Approach. Process-driven with a more compact team than MarshBerry. Senior partner involvement is typically deeper through the engagement. Communication style is more direct. Aggressive on negotiation positions.

Fee structure. Comparable to MarshBerry in the 1.0-1.75% range. Tiered structures for larger transactions.

Best fit. Principals who want senior advisor involvement throughout the process, are comfortable with an aggressive negotiating posture, and value transactional rigor over institutional polish. Particularly strong fit for specialty commercial agencies.

Considerations. Aggressive negotiation can lengthen timelines. Some principals report that the firm’s posture, while it serves seller interests on price, can create friction with strategic buyers who prefer more collaborative processes.

Reagan Consulting

Profile. Founded 1990. Headquartered in Atlanta. The dual identity of Reagan Consulting matters. The firm is both an M&A advisor and the publisher of the most widely cited operating benchmarks in the independent agency industry (the Reagan Consulting Best Practices Study). Closed 30-40 transactions annually in 2024-2025.

Specialty. Mid-sized independent agencies, $3M-$30M revenue. Reagan has historically been associated with strategic regional buyer relationships and internal succession (ESOP and perpetuation) planning, in addition to external sale.

Buyer relationships. Strong strategic regional buyer network. Active in PE-rollup but historically less rollup-focused than MarshBerry. Particularly strong relationships with the larger insurance brokers acquiring at the upper end of the independent agency market.

Approach. Consultative. Reagan’s identity as both advisor and benchmark publisher gives the firm an analytical posture, with more emphasis on agency operating performance and value-improvement work in the pre-sale period. Engagement letters frequently include operating consulting alongside transaction work.

Fee structure. Comparable to peers, with consulting engagements priced separately when scoped.

Best fit. Principals who want a longer-horizon relationship (operating consulting and benchmarking in the 24-36 months before a sale, then transaction work), and principals who value strategic regional buyer access and internal succession planning alongside external sale.

Considerations. The dual identity is a strength and a constraint. Principals who want a focused transaction execution rather than a broader advisory relationship sometimes find Reagan’s model heavier than necessary.

OPTIS Partners

Profile. Founded 2002. Headquartered in Chicago. Smaller deal volume than the other three named firms but with deep credibility in research and benchmarking. The OPTIS year-end M&A report is a primary reference source for industry transaction trends.

Specialty. Smaller-to-mid independent P&C agencies, $1M-$15M revenue. OPTIS has built a reputation for serving sellers in the lower-mid market who would be under-resourced inside the larger firms.

Buyer relationships. Active across PE-rollups, strategic regionals, and a meaningful network of mid-sized regional brokers acquiring smaller agencies. Particularly strong for sellers in the $1M-$5M revenue range where a smaller bidder pool is appropriate.

Approach. Senior-led engagements. The principals of OPTIS are personally involved in transactions in a way that is increasingly rare at the larger firms. Communication style is direct and personalized.

Fee structure. Industry-comparable percentages with minimums calibrated for the smaller-deal segment.

Best fit. Principals running smaller agencies, $1M-$8M revenue, who want senior partner attention and a tailored process rather than a templated institutional engagement.

Considerations. Smaller team and smaller deal volume mean fewer simultaneous engagements at any given time. Capacity constraints occasionally affect timeline. Verify availability at engagement.

The advisor brings the buyers. If your agency profile is best served by one buyer category and your advisor specializes in another, the mismatch shows up as fewer bids and a weaker negotiating position.

Boutique alternatives

The four major firms do not cover every transaction. Credible boutiques exist, and for some sellers, a boutique is the better choice.

Bluestone Advisors. Smaller boutique with focused independent agency M&A practice. Senior partner involvement is comprehensive; there is little institutional layering. Particularly credible for sellers in the $2M-$10M revenue range who want personalized process management. Buyer relationships are narrower than the major firms but typically high-quality within the firm’s specialty.

Westcott Risk Insurance. Niche M&A advisory work alongside other services. Most relevant for principals already inside a Westcott relationship through other engagements; less typically a primary advisor selection for a first-time process.

Regional specialists. Several regional firms (Texas, the Southeast, the Midwest) run credible agency M&A practices with deep regional buyer relationships. For sellers whose buyer pool is meaningfully regional rather than national, a regional specialist can outperform a national firm. The challenge is identifying the credible regional firms; the marketing surface area is noisier than the major firms.

When a boutique beats name-brand. Three conditions favor a boutique. First, deal size is below the major firm’s natural range. Smaller agencies are systematically under-served at the top of the market. Second, the principal values senior partner attention and a tailored process more than the breadth of buyer relationships. Third, the buyer pool is concentrated regionally or by specialty in a way that aligns with the boutique’s network. When all three are true, a boutique is frequently the better choice. When fewer than two are true, a major firm is usually the right call.

How to choose

Run the framework. Sixty days. Six steps.

1. Define your transaction profile. Revenue, EBITDA, line-of-business mix, geographic footprint, target buyer category (PE rollup, strategic regional, internal succession, or undecided), target timeline. Write it down. This is the brief you will give to every advisor you interview.

2. Interview at least three advisors. Two from the major firms, one boutique or regional specialist. The third interview reveals what the first two are not telling you. Single-interview engagements are how principals end up in the wrong process.

3. Reference-check with recent clients of similar profile. Two references from the advisor are marketing. Three references you find independently (through industry contacts, attorneys, or principal networks) are research. Ask about the buyer pool surfaced, the negotiation experience, and what they would do differently. Recent transactions, not engagements from five years ago.

4. Evaluate communication and trust fit. A sale process is a 9-15 month relationship in which the advisor will know your financials, your producer compensation, your succession plan, and your private intent. Communication style and trust fit matter as much as competence. The principal who hates their advisor’s communication style at month three will hate it at month nine.

5. Compare fee structures honestly. Headline percentage is the starting point. Retainer credits, tiering above thresholds, expense reimbursement provisions, what counts as transaction value for fee calculation, success-fee triggers: all of this is negotiable. Get the engagement letter in writing and read it.

6. Confirm process and access to senior advisors. The senior partner at the pitch meeting is not always the senior partner on the engagement. Confirm in writing who runs the process, who attends buyer meetings, who negotiates the LOI, and who is on the line for the closing. If the named senior partner is not contractually committed to the engagement, the pitch was marketing.

Conclusion

The right advisor depends on agency size, deal complexity, and buyer pool fit. MarshBerry is the default for mid-to-large agencies targeting PE rollups and willing to run a structured institutional process. Sica Fletcher is the choice for principals who want aggressive seller-side negotiation and senior involvement throughout. Reagan Consulting is the right call for principals who want longer-horizon advisory relationships including operating consulting and internal succession options. OPTIS Partners and credible boutiques serve the lower-mid market and specialty cases where the major firms are over-resourced.

Run the framework. Talk to three. Reference-check with people you find yourself. The advisor you select is the most consequential decision you will make in the months before signing. Treat it accordingly.

For the underlying valuation methodology and current Q4 2025 multiple ranges that frame these advisor conversations, see our companion guide on how to value an insurance agency in 2026. The strategic context on internal succession alternatives, when an ESOP or perpetuation plan beats an external sale, gets its own dedicated piece in our cornerstone publication schedule.