phidea
← All tools

CyberCube vs Planck — Data platform for US insurance, 2026.

CyberCube (7 named carriers) and Planck (5 named carriers) both sit at the data platform layer. Zero customer overlap in the public roster — they are addressing different segments of the same stack layer.

Last verified 2026-04-22 · methodology

TL;DR

  • CyberCube has 7 publicly-named carrier deployments; Planck has 5. Both at the data platform layer.
  • Zero customer overlap in the public roster. CyberCube and Planck are addressing different carriers within the same stack layer.
  • Both classified ai-native on Phidea's generation axis.
  • Ownership contrast: CyberCube is PE-owned (Spectrum Equity (cornerstone investor, 2025); Forgepoint Capital, Hudson Structured Capital Management, MTech Capital (existing)); Planck is a subsidiary of Applied Systems.
  • Analyst coverage: 0 firms cover both, 3 only CyberCube, 2 only Planck.

Customer overlap

BucketCount
Named on CyberCube only7
Named on Planck only5
Named on both0
of which US-named on at least one side0

Only on CyberCube

  • Munich Re (global)
  • Guy Carpenter (global)
  • Hannover Re (global)
  • MAPFRE RE (global)
  • Relm Insurance Ltd (US)
  • Elpha Secure (US)
  • Converge (US)

Only on Planck

  • Chubb (US)
  • Great American Insurance Group — Republic Indemnity (US)
  • AIG — Attune (US)
  • Sompo (JP)
  • Nationwide Insurance (US)

Counts derived from 13sourced carrier-deployment entries across both vendor cards. Aggregate-only statements (e.g. “16 of the top 20”) excluded.

Stack position

CyberCube
Generation
ai-native
Stack layer
Data platform
Founded
2015
Lines
commercial, specialty
Planck
Generation
ai-native
Stack layer
Data platform
Founded
2016
Lines
commercial, specialty
Replaces
manual underwriter web research

Ownership and corporate context

CyberCube
Type
private-equity
Parent
Spectrum Equity (cornerstone investor, 2025); Forgepoint Capital, Hudson Structured Capital Management, MTech Capital (existing)

Source: CyberCube

Planck
Type
subsidiary
Parent
Applied Systems
Acquired
2024
Deal value
$300M

Source: Ctech

Carrier-segment specialization

CyberCube — geographic split

  • global
    4
  • US
    3

Planck — geographic split

  • US
    4
  • JP
    1

Analyst coverage differential

Only CyberCube cited by
  • Artemis (2025: Cyber cat bond modeller CyberCube gets $180m investment from Spectrum Equity)
  • Reinsurance News (2025: CyberCube secures over $180m investment from Spectrum Equity)
  • The Insurer / Cyber Risk Insurer (2025: CyberCube raises over $180 million from new investor Spectrum Equity)
Only Planck cited by
  • Duck Creek (2023: Planck — Duck Creek partner directory entry)
  • Insurance Business America (2021: Planck: Finding the truth about SMEs)

Recent news (last 12 months)

No news items in the last 12 months for either tool.

Sourced limitations

CyberCube
  • CyberCube is a data and analytics provider, not a risk-bearing entity. Unlike Coalition or At-Bay, it takes no underwriting risk and holds no MGA authority — revenue is SaaS/licensing against (re)insurer budgets, so growth tracks cyber analytics wallet rather than direct-to-SMB premium volume. This is a narrower, more cyclical buyer base than a full-stack MGA.
    Source: CyberCube
  • Cyber catastrophe modelling is still a young, model-diverse category. CyberCube's Portfolio Manager dominates third-party cyber ILS modelling, but the legacy cat-modelling incumbents (Verisk's Extreme Event Solutions, Moody's RMS) also ship cyber models, and large carriers maintain in-house experience-based models alongside. The third-party layer is additive, not yet regulatory-mandated the way nat-cat modelling is in Solvency II / RBC capital filings.
    Source: Forgepoint Capital
  • Independent analyst recognition (Gartner, Forrester, Celent) on cyber risk analytics for insurance is thin at the category level — the market is covered primarily by specialist trade press (Artemis, Reinsurance News, Insurance Insider, The Insurer) rather than horizontal IT analysts. Buyers validate CyberCube through reinsurer and broker references, not Magic Quadrants.
    Source: Artemis
Planck

No publicly-sourced limitations recorded on the vendor card yet.

Limitations published on Phidea are sourced to the underlying citation and reflect what is publicly named — not an exhaustive list. Consult the vendor card for the full record.

Frequently asked

Do any carriers run both CyberCube and Planck?
Not in Phidea's public roster. Across 12 sourced carrier-deployment entries on both vendor cards, zero carriers appear on both. The two tools are addressing different carriers within the same stack layer.
Who owns CyberCube and Planck?
CyberCube is PE-owned (Spectrum Equity (cornerstone investor, 2025); Forgepoint Capital, Hudson Structured Capital Management, MTech Capital (existing)). Planck is a subsidiary of Applied Systems.
Which has more named US carriers?
Planck has the larger publicly-named US roster: CyberCube 3, Planck 4. Public-roster size is a coverage signal, not a quality signal — vendors with stronger NDAs may have larger actual US footprints than the public count shows.
Where are these tools positioned in the insurance stack?
Both sit at the data platform layer. CyberCube operates as a standalone vendor; Planck replaces manual underwriter web research.

Adjacent reading