Life Insurance
Consensus Index

AI Consensus Fit Review

Foresters Financial Graded-Benefit Final Expense Insurance Fit Review

Foresters Financial is a good fit for Graded-Benefit Final Expense Insurance, with one platform rating it mixed.

Research: 2026-09-227 usable platform responsesRead the methodology ↗

Share

Answer Capsule

Foresters Financial is a good fit for Graded-Benefit Final Expense Insurance, with one platform rating it mixed. Four of seven platforms named Foresters Financial during the ranking stage, and six of seven rated the fit "good." The strongest reason to consider it is PlanRight Basic, a permanent whole-life graded option with guaranteed level premiums, simplified underwriting, and a clearly described early-year benefit limitation. The main limitation is that public materials conflict on the exact graded payout formula, the graded-tier face-amount cap, and 2026 pricing, so buyers must confirm the state-approved certificate terms before purchasing.

Research Snapshot

FieldFinding
Platform mentions in ranking stage4 of 7 platforms (deepseek, google, kimi, openai)
Share of included platform responses57.1%
Average listed rank3.75
Best listed rank2 (google, openai)
Relevant product/model/planForesters PlanRight Whole Life Insurance — PlanRight Basic graded death benefit
Overall use-case fitGood (6 platforms); Mixed (1 platform) — 7 platforms analyzed
Research date2026-09-22

Why Foresters Financial Qualified for This Study

Questions This Section Answers

  • Is Foresters Financial a good choice for Graded-Benefit Final Expense Insurance?
  • Why did AI platforms include Foresters Financial in graded-benefit final expense rankings?

Foresters Financial qualified because it sells a named graded-benefit final expense product, not a general life policy that might be adapted to the use case. PlanRight Whole life insurance includes a Basic tier that Foresters describes as the graded death-benefit option for applicants who do not receive a level-benefit offer [1]. Four of the seven platforms named Foresters Financial during ranking discovery, and it landed at an average listed rank of 3.75 with a best rank of 2 (google, openai).

The carrier also cleared the study's baseline criteria. It is a regulated fraternal benefit society with a long operating history [3], and it reports an A (Excellent) A.M. Best financial-strength rating with a stable outlook for the relevant Foresters rating unit [4]. Independent reviews repeat the A-grade rating [6].

Fit ratings were not unanimous. Six platforms rated Foresters Financial "good" for this use case; deepseek rated it "mixed," citing unverified graded-period terms, unpublished 2026 premiums, and the fraternal certificate structure [8]. That split is preserved throughout this review rather than averaged away.

The Product, Model, Plan, or Service Most Relevant to Graded-Benefit Final Expense Insurance

Questions This Section Answers

  • Which Foresters Financial plan should a buyer choose if they cannot qualify for level-benefit final expense coverage?
  • Does Foresters PlanRight Basic pay full benefits immediately, or is there a waiting period?

The relevant product is PlanRight Basic, the graded-death-benefit tier inside Foresters PlanRight Whole Life Insurance. Foresters describes PlanRight as permanent whole-life coverage with lifetime death-benefit protection to age 121, guaranteed cash value, and guaranteed level premiums while the certificate remains in force [10].

PlanRight Basic is the tier for applicants who do not qualify for the Preferred or Standard level-benefit tiers. Independent reviews describe it as the graded option offered when applicants cannot qualify for Preferred or Standard, with no medical underwriting and a two-year waiting period [13]. One review states plainly that Foresters has no guaranteed-issue option: applicants who fail the health questions are declined rather than placed into a no-questions product [14].

The early-year benefit limitation is the defining feature. Foresters' own brochure describes the first-two-year benefit as premiums paid plus 10% annual interest, followed by 100% of the face amount beginning in year three [15]. Google's research surfaced the same return-of-premium-plus-10% formula in a Foresters training document [16]. Other sources describe a percentage-of-face-amount structure instead: 30% of face amount in year one, 70% in year two, and 100% in year three [17]. At least one source describes the benefit as the greater of the two calculations [17]. Accidental death during the graded period is widely reported to pay 100% of the face amount [21].

What the AI Platforms Agreed About

Questions This Section Answers

  • What do AI platforms agree on about Foresters Financial PlanRight Basic for graded-benefit final expense coverage?
  • Is Foresters Financial PlanRight a permanent policy with level premiums?

Agreement was strong, though not unanimous, on five points.

Permanent coverage with level premiums. Every platform that discussed the product described PlanRight as permanent whole life with guaranteed level premiums and coverage to age 121 [23]. Independent reviews repeat the same structure [28].

Simplified underwriting without a medical exam. Foresters states that PlanRight is underwritten on a simplified-issue basis, with insurability determined by medical and other application questions and underwriting review rather than bloodwork, saliva swabs, or a paramedical visit [23]. Independent sources describe the same process, including a point-of-sale interview and database checks [32].

A graded tier exists for applicants with health conditions. Multiple platforms and independent reviews agree that the graded option is designed for applicants with past medical history or active treatment who do not qualify for level benefits [34].

A two-year early-year limitation. All platforms that described the graded structure agreed the first two policy years pay less than the full face amount for natural-cause death, with full benefits thereafter [38].

Strong financial-strength ratings. Foresters reports an A (Excellent) A.M. Best rating with stable outlook for the Independent Order of Foresters rating unit, including Foresters Life Insurance Company [42]. Independent reviews repeat the A-grade rating [44].

Where the AI Platforms Disagreed or Were Uncertain

Questions This Section Answers

  • How is the Foresters PlanRight Basic graded death benefit actually calculated in years one and two?
  • What is the maximum face amount for Foresters PlanRight Basic graded coverage?

Four material conflicts surfaced, and none of them were resolved by the supplied evidence.

The graded payout formula. Foresters' own brochure and a Foresters training document describe the first-two-year benefit as premiums paid plus 10% annual interest [47]. New Horizons and other sources describe 30% of face amount in year one and 70% in year two, or the greater of that and premiums plus 4.5% interest [49]. Grok flagged the same conflict directly: "ROP +4.5% vs 30%/70% or ROP +10%" [52]. These are not equivalent formulas, and the difference matters most to a beneficiary filing a claim in year one.

The graded-tier face-amount cap. Google's research found a $15,000 maximum for PlanRight Basic [53]. Grok reported up to $20,000 for the graded tier [55]. Perplexity found both figures in different sources [56]. The producer guide reviewed by OpenAI lists a $15,000 maximum for ages 50 through 80 [58]. The $35,000 figure that appears in some reviews applies to the Preferred tier, not the graded tier [54].

Full-benefit timing. Most sources say full face amount begins in year three [59]. Perplexity noted that some public materials describe full payout "after 2 years" rather than "starting in year 3," which is a wording difference with real claim-timing consequences [62].

Pricing and fees. No platform found published 2026 rates. Grok reported a $10 monthly minimum premium and a $36 annual certificate fee [64]. Google reported the same $36 annual certificate fee plus modal payment factors of 0.0875 monthly, 0.26 quarterly, and 0.51 semi-annually [65]. Perplexity found a rate-book reference indicating the annual certificate fee is included in the quoted premium [66]. OpenAI's producer-guide review lists a $10 monthly minimum premium [58]. No platform produced a consumer-specific quote.

Use-Case-Specific Features and Capabilities

Questions This Section Answers

  • What features does Foresters PlanRight Basic offer a buyer with health conditions who needs final expense coverage?
  • Does Foresters PlanRight Basic include riders at no extra cost?

PlanRight Basic is built around four features that map directly to the graded-benefit use case.

Graded eligibility for health conditions. The tier exists specifically for applicants who do not receive a level-benefit offer. Independent reviews describe it as the option for applicants with pre-existing conditions that do not qualify for a level-benefit plan [67].

Permanent coverage after the graded period. Once the graded period ends, the policy is designed to pay the full face amount for life, with coverage to age 121 [70].

Included riders at no additional premium. Multiple sources report that PlanRight includes the Common Carrier Accidental Death Rider and the Family Health Benefit Rider at no additional premium [73]. Grok also lists an accelerated death benefit for terminal illness at no extra cost [77]. One source states that certain member benefits require a face amount of $10,000 or more [78].

Fraternal membership benefits. As a fraternal benefit society, Foresters extends non-contractual member benefits such as scholarships, financial counseling, discounted legal services, and community grants [79]. Foresters' own site states these benefits are non-contractual, subject to eligibility requirements and limitations, and may be changed or canceled without notice (official:C1).

Pricing, Fees, Contracts, and Ongoing Costs

Questions This Section Answers

  • How much does Foresters Financial PlanRight Basic cost per month, and what fees apply?
  • Are Foresters PlanRight Basic premiums guaranteed to stay level for life?

No platform found published 2026 rates for PlanRight Basic. Pricing confidence was rated low by anthropic, deepseek, and perplexity, and moderate by openai and grok. Any figure below is a platform-reported data point, not a verified quote.

Cost elementReported detailSource
Minimum monthly premium$10,
Annual certificate fee$36,
Modal factors0.0875 monthly, 0.26 quarterly, 0.51 semi-annual
Premium payment periodGenerally to age 121
Surrender feeNone reported
Loan interestReduces death benefit if borrowed against,

Premiums are guaranteed level for the life of the policy once issued [84]. Rates vary by issue age, gender, tobacco use, coverage amount, payment mode, underwriting outcome, and state [87]. One independent review describes Foresters pricing as middle-of-the-road — not the cheapest, not the priciest [89]. No platform established that Foresters is the lowest-cost graded option for any specific applicant profile.

Contract terms reported across platforms include a 31-day grace period for missed premiums [90], cancellation by surrender request form with no surrender fee [91], and no temporary insurance coverage during underwriting [93]. Foresters states that products and riders may not be available or approved in all states and are subject to underwriting approval, limitations, contract terms, and state variations [94].

Best Suited For

Questions This Section Answers

  • Who is Foresters Financial PlanRight Basic best suited for among graded-benefit final expense buyers?
  • Is Foresters Financial a good fit for an applicant aged 50 to 80 with moderate health conditions?

PlanRight Basic is best suited for applicants aged 50 through 80 with moderate health conditions who can pass simplified underwriting but do not qualify for level benefits [95]. The producer guide lists Basic issue ages of 50 through 80 with a $5,000 minimum and $15,000 maximum face amount for those ages, and no Basic availability listed for ages 81 through 85 [95].

It also fits buyers who want permanent coverage with predictable premiums and are comfortable with a reduced benefit during the first two policy years [98]. Buyers who value fraternal member benefits such as will preparation, scholarships, and financial counseling are a secondary fit, subject to the non-contractual nature of those benefits [100].

One practical constraint: Foresters prohibits internet or mail sales for PlanRight, and the producer guide requires a point-of-sale interview with the applicant [101]. Buyers who want a fully digital purchase path will not find one here.

Probably Not Best Suited For

Questions This Section Answers

  • Who should not choose Foresters Financial PlanRight Basic for graded-benefit final expense insurance?
  • Is Foresters Financial PlanRight Basic a good choice for a buyer who needs guaranteed acceptance with no health questions?

PlanRight Basic is probably not the right choice in five situations.

Buyers who need guaranteed acceptance without health questions should look elsewhere. Foresters has no guaranteed-issue option, and applicants who fail the health questions are declined [103]. Buyers who need more than the graded-tier maximum face amount should also compare other carriers, since the graded cap is reported at $15,000 by some sources and $20,000 by others [104].

Buyers who need full death-benefit protection immediately are a poor fit, because the first two years pay less than the face amount for natural-cause death [107]. Buyers who want premiums guaranteed to end before age 121 are also a poor fit, since premiums generally continue to age 121 [104]. Finally, buyers in Oregon, South Carolina, or Virginia cannot purchase PlanRight at all, per one independent review [109]; other sources claim broader availability, so state availability should be confirmed with an agent [110].

When Another Option May Be Better

Questions This Section Answers

  • What is a better alternative to Foresters Financial for a buyer who needs a higher graded-benefit face amount?
  • When should a buyer choose a different carrier over Foresters Financial PlanRight Basic?

Another carrier may be better in five specific scenarios, based on platform-reported comparisons.

If the buyer needs a higher graded face amount, Transamerica's simplified-issue product is reported to reach $100,000 with graded coverage to age 80 [111]. If the buyer wants a premium-return graded structure in the early years, BetterLife's graded policy is reported to return premiums plus 4.5% interest for natural-cause death in the first two years [112]. If the buyer wants a graded-only product with no tobacco distinction, Guarantee Trust Life's Heritage Plan is reported as graded-only, ages 40 to 90, $2,500 to $20,000, with no tobacco distinction [113]. If the buyer needs guaranteed issue with no health questions, Gerber or Royal Neighbors guaranteed-issue products were named as alternatives [114]. If the buyer qualifies for a level-benefit policy at a similar premium, a level policy removes the early-year limitation entirely [115].

These comparisons are platform-reported and were not independently verified. Buyers should request side-by-side written quotes from at least two graded-benefit carriers before deciding.

Questions to Verify Before Buying

Questions This Section Answers

  • What should a buyer confirm with Foresters Financial before signing a PlanRight Basic contract?
  • Which state-specific PlanRight Basic terms should a buyer verify before purchase?

The supplied research surfaced a consistent verification list across platforms. Buyers should confirm each item in writing before signing.

  1. Will the application be issued as PlanRight Basic, and what exact benefit is payable on a death in policy years one and two [117]?
  2. Is the first-two-year benefit the greater of premiums plus interest and a percentage of face amount, or only premiums plus 10% interest under the applicable state form [119]?
  3. What is the exact monthly premium, including any certificate or policy charges, for the requested face amount [122]?
  4. What is the maximum face amount available for the graded tier at the applicant's age — $15,000 or $20,000 [122]?
  5. Is PlanRight Basic available in the buyer's state and at the buyer's age [125]?
  6. What health conditions trigger Basic instead of Preferred or Standard, and could the applicant instead receive a modified offer or decline [117]?
  7. How long must premiums be paid, and what happens if premiums stop or the policy is surrendered [122]?
  8. Which riders are included with Basic in the buyer's state, and which are unavailable on the graded option [129]?
  9. What are the grace-period, reinstatement, nonforfeiture, and reduced-paid-up provisions in the state-approved certificate [117]?
  10. What are the premiums and early-year benefits from at least two comparable graded-benefit carriers [117]?

Final AI Consensus Verdict

Foresters Financial is a good, but not unequivocally best, fit for graded-benefit final expense insurance. Six of seven platforms rated the fit "good"; deepseek rated it "mixed" because graded-period terms, 2026 premiums, and state availability are not clearly published on Foresters' public pages [132]. PlanRight Basic directly addresses the target buyer's need for permanent coverage after level-benefit underwriting is unavailable, and its level premiums and publicly described two-year grading period are useful advantages [133].

The buyer should proceed only after comparing the issued premium and state-specific benefit formula with competing graded policies. Maximum graded coverage is limited, premiums generally continue to age 121, and the early death benefit can be materially below the face amount [135]. Platform agreement on these points does not prove product quality; it reflects what the reviewed sources said.

How This Review Was Produced

This review evaluates Foresters Financial only for graded-benefit final expense insurance. It is not a broad company review. Seven AI platforms were asked which life insurance carriers they would recommend for a consumer with health conditions who may not qualify for level-benefit final expense coverage but may qualify for a graded-benefit policy. Four of the seven platforms named Foresters Financial during ranking discovery. All seven platforms then produced fit-research responses covering product details, underwriting, pricing, limitations, and verification questions.

The consensus index for this category is Graded-Benefit Final Expense Insurance, which ranks all carriers evaluated for this use case. Broader carrier coverage is available in the life insurance directory.

Methodology Limitations

Platform-reported research dates differ from the authoritative run date of 2026-09-22. Six platforms reported 2026-09-23; deepseek reported 2026-06-01. These dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.

Citations are platform-reported evidence, not independently verified facts. The supplied URLs were collected from platform responses and were not independently validated by the writer stage. Deepseek ran with search disabled, so its claims require explicit verification before being described as current facts.

Material conflicts remain unresolved: the graded payout formula (premiums plus 10% interest versus 30%/70% of face amount versus the greater of the two), the graded-tier face-amount cap ($15,000 versus $20,000), full-benefit timing (year three versus after two years), and 2026 pricing. No public official rate table was found that would permit a reliable consumer-specific price comparison. State availability, underwriting rules, benefit calculations, and riders may vary, and the state-approved certificate should control.

From the index

Compare the adjacent findings before forming a view.

Sources

Company-Owned Sources

  • Foresters PlanRight Producer Guide: https://ezbiz.foresters.com/-/media/ezbiz/documents/public-facing-site/products/planright/503306-us-1024-foresters-planright-product-guide.pdf
  • Foresters playbook PDF: https://ezbiz.foresters.com/-/media/ezbiz/documents/public-facing-site/recruiting/505532-us-1125-foresters-playbook-us-gen.pdf
  • Required New York Product Training for Regulation 187 - ezbiz - Foresters Financial: https://ezbiz.foresters.com/files/pdfs/usa/ny-reg-187-product-training.pdf
  • Foresters PlanRight Life Insurance: https://ezbiz.foresters.com/foresters-planright-brochure-sc
  • Foresters PlanRight Whole Life Insurance Producer Guide: https://ezbiz.foresters.com/foresters-planright-product-guide
  • Graded Benefit Whole Life: Guaranteed Final Expense Coverage: https://www.betterlifeins.com/life-insurance/final-expense/graded-benefit-whole-life/
  • Best's Company Report: https://www.foresters.com/-/media/forestersmvc/files/ol6740960132002finalua.pdf
  • Plan right today, ease the burden tomorrow. - ezbiz - Foresters Financial: https://www.foresters.com/-/media/forestersmvc/files/pdfs/usa/planright-consumer-brochure-us.pdf
  • Foresters Financial — About Us: https://www.foresters.com/en/about-us
  • Financial Strength | Foresters Financial | US: https://www.foresters.com/en/about-us/financial-strength
  • Foresters Financial — PlanRight Final Expense Whole Life Insurance: https://www.foresters.com/en/insurance/plannight-final-expense
  • Life Insurance | Foresters Financial | US: https://www.foresters.com/en/life-insurance
  • PlanRight Whole Life Insurance - Foresters Financial: https://www.foresters.com/en/life-insurance/planright
  • PlanRight | Foresters Financial | US: https://www.foresters.com/en/life-insurance/whole-life-insurance/planright
  • Official pricing and terms source: https://www.foresters.com/en/
  • Additional AI research evidence135 records
    1. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    2. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    3. AI research evidence record deepseek:foresters-about-us
    4. AI research evidence record openai:c5
    5. AI research evidence record openai:c6
    6. AI research evidence record anthropic:38-2
    7. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_h
    8. AI research evidence record deepseek:foresters-plannight-overview
    9. AI research evidence record deepseek:naic-fraternal
    10. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    11. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-1
    12. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    13. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    14. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_d
    15. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    16. AI research evidence record google:2.2.5
    17. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    18. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_b
    19. AI research evidence record google:1.1.5
    20. AI research evidence record anthropic:11-4
    21. AI research evidence record google:1.1.6
    22. AI research evidence record anthropic:26-1
    23. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    24. AI research evidence record anthropic:21-2
    25. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    26. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_g
    27. AI research evidence record google:1.1.1
    28. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    29. AI research evidence record anthropic:33-2
    30. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-1
    31. AI research evidence record google:1.2.1
    32. AI research evidence record anthropic:16-3
    33. AI research evidence record google:2.2.4
    34. AI research evidence record anthropic:6-2
    35. AI research evidence record anthropic:13-16
    36. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-13
    37. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    38. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    39. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    40. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_b
    41. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    42. AI research evidence record openai:c5
    43. AI research evidence record openai:c6
    44. AI research evidence record anthropic:38-2
    45. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_h
    46. AI research evidence record anthropic:34-5
    47. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    48. AI research evidence record google:2.2.5
    49. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    50. AI research evidence record anthropic:11-4
    51. AI research evidence record grok:web:4
    52. AI research evidence record grok:web:7
    53. AI research evidence record google:1.1.2
    54. AI research evidence record google:2.1.6
    55. AI research evidence record grok:web:3
    56. AI research evidence record perplexity:c2
    57. AI research evidence record perplexity:c9
    58. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    59. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_b
    60. AI research evidence record google:1.1.5
    61. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    62. AI research evidence record perplexity:c3
    63. AI research evidence record perplexity:c5
    64. AI research evidence record grok:web:6
    65. AI research evidence record google:1.1.6
    66. AI research evidence record perplexity:c7
    67. AI research evidence record anthropic:13-16
    68. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-13
    69. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    70. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    71. AI research evidence record anthropic:21-2
    72. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    73. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-3
    74. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-4
    75. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-5
    76. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-6
    77. AI research evidence record grok:web:0
    78. AI research evidence record anthropic:26-13
    79. AI research evidence record anthropic:32-2
    80. AI research evidence record anthropic:41-15
    81. AI research evidence record anthropic:41-16
    82. AI research evidence record anthropic:41-17
    83. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_j
    84. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    85. AI research evidence record anthropic:33-2
    86. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_g
    87. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    88. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-5
    89. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_i
    90. AI research evidence record google:1.1.6
    91. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-13
    92. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-14
    93. AI research evidence record anthropic:17-6
    94. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    95. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    96. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-8
    97. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_f
    98. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    99. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    100. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_j
    101. AI research evidence record anthropic:22-5
    102. AI research evidence record anthropic:22-6
    103. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_d
    104. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    105. AI research evidence record google:1.1.2
    106. AI research evidence record grok:web:3
    107. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    108. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    109. AI research evidence record anthropic:8-9
    110. AI research evidence record anthropic:25-1
    111. AI research evidence record kimi:ca_2026_a
    112. AI research evidence record kimi:bli_2026
    113. AI research evidence record kimi:gtl_2026
    114. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_d
    115. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    116. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    117. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    118. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    119. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    120. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    121. AI research evidence record grok:web:7
    122. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    123. AI research evidence record google:1.1.6
    124. AI research evidence record grok:web:3
    125. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    126. AI research evidence record anthropic:8-9
    127. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_d
    128. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-13
    129. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-3
    130. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-4
    131. AI research evidence record kimi:ca_2026
    132. AI research evidence record deepseek:foresters-plannight-overview
    133. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    134. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    135. AI research evidence record openai:c2

Independent Sources

Other Sources

  • Foresters help with final expense planning: https://garityadvantage.com/Documents/Foresters/PlanRight%20Consume%20Brochure.pdf
  • Foresters PlanRight Agent Guide: https://rosenthalfinancialservices.com/_downloadz/PlanRight_Product_Guide.pdf
  • PlanRight Rate Book: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod-orbital-resources/harpercole/Carriers/Foresters/Products/Plan+Right+Final+Expense/PlamRight+Rate+Book.pdf
  • PlanRight Consumer Brochure: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod-orbital-resources/harpercole/Carriers/Foresters/Products/Plan+Right+Final+Expense/Plan+RightvConsumer+brochure+503340_US.PDF
  • Additional AI research evidence135 records
    1. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    2. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    3. AI research evidence record deepseek:foresters-about-us
    4. AI research evidence record openai:c5
    5. AI research evidence record openai:c6
    6. AI research evidence record anthropic:38-2
    7. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_h
    8. AI research evidence record deepseek:foresters-plannight-overview
    9. AI research evidence record deepseek:naic-fraternal
    10. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    11. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-1
    12. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    13. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    14. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_d
    15. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    16. AI research evidence record google:2.2.5
    17. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    18. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_b
    19. AI research evidence record google:1.1.5
    20. AI research evidence record anthropic:11-4
    21. AI research evidence record google:1.1.6
    22. AI research evidence record anthropic:26-1
    23. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    24. AI research evidence record anthropic:21-2
    25. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    26. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_g
    27. AI research evidence record google:1.1.1
    28. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    29. AI research evidence record anthropic:33-2
    30. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-1
    31. AI research evidence record google:1.2.1
    32. AI research evidence record anthropic:16-3
    33. AI research evidence record google:2.2.4
    34. AI research evidence record anthropic:6-2
    35. AI research evidence record anthropic:13-16
    36. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-13
    37. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    38. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    39. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    40. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_b
    41. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    42. AI research evidence record openai:c5
    43. AI research evidence record openai:c6
    44. AI research evidence record anthropic:38-2
    45. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_h
    46. AI research evidence record anthropic:34-5
    47. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    48. AI research evidence record google:2.2.5
    49. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    50. AI research evidence record anthropic:11-4
    51. AI research evidence record grok:web:4
    52. AI research evidence record grok:web:7
    53. AI research evidence record google:1.1.2
    54. AI research evidence record google:2.1.6
    55. AI research evidence record grok:web:3
    56. AI research evidence record perplexity:c2
    57. AI research evidence record perplexity:c9
    58. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    59. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_b
    60. AI research evidence record google:1.1.5
    61. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    62. AI research evidence record perplexity:c3
    63. AI research evidence record perplexity:c5
    64. AI research evidence record grok:web:6
    65. AI research evidence record google:1.1.6
    66. AI research evidence record perplexity:c7
    67. AI research evidence record anthropic:13-16
    68. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-13
    69. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    70. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    71. AI research evidence record anthropic:21-2
    72. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    73. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-3
    74. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-4
    75. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-5
    76. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-6
    77. AI research evidence record grok:web:0
    78. AI research evidence record anthropic:26-13
    79. AI research evidence record anthropic:32-2
    80. AI research evidence record anthropic:41-15
    81. AI research evidence record anthropic:41-16
    82. AI research evidence record anthropic:41-17
    83. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_j
    84. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    85. AI research evidence record anthropic:33-2
    86. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_g
    87. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    88. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-5
    89. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_i
    90. AI research evidence record google:1.1.6
    91. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-13
    92. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-14
    93. AI research evidence record anthropic:17-6
    94. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    95. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    96. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-8
    97. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_f
    98. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    99. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    100. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_j
    101. AI research evidence record anthropic:22-5
    102. AI research evidence record anthropic:22-6
    103. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_d
    104. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    105. AI research evidence record google:1.1.2
    106. AI research evidence record grok:web:3
    107. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    108. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    109. AI research evidence record anthropic:8-9
    110. AI research evidence record anthropic:25-1
    111. AI research evidence record kimi:ca_2026_a
    112. AI research evidence record kimi:bli_2026
    113. AI research evidence record kimi:gtl_2026
    114. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_d
    115. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    116. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    117. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    118. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    119. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    120. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    121. AI research evidence record grok:web:7
    122. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    123. AI research evidence record google:1.1.6
    124. AI research evidence record grok:web:3
    125. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    126. AI research evidence record anthropic:8-9
    127. AI research evidence record kimi:tbi_2026_d
    128. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-13
    129. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-3
    130. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-4
    131. AI research evidence record kimi:ca_2026
    132. AI research evidence record deepseek:foresters-plannight-overview
    133. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    134. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    135. AI research evidence record openai:c2

Verify this research

Check when the research was run, which platforms were included, and what supports the findings.

Study date
September 22, 2026
Platforms analyzed
7
Source records
50
Ranking mentions
4 of 7
Platform share
57%
Final consensus rank
#4

Behind the findings

Platforms in this study

  • ChatGPT
  • Claude
  • DeepSeek
  • Grok
  • Perplexity
  • Kimi
  • Gemini

Source records

31 independent · 15 company-owned · 4 unclear

Evidence support

22 direct · 8 partial

Keep in mind

Use the run research_date as the study date. Platform-reported dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.

Technical verification details

Use this SHA-256 fingerprint to identify the source snapshot associated with this study.

407783c80e33328dfb1533a3ab335848e281db86a44c601f70d44c13f7908493