Insurance Compare
Quickly compare HK insurance products' coverage, premiums, and terms
Select 2-4 products to view coverage and terms differences. Data sourced from public information for reference only.
GP3 vs Entrust: decide execution feasibility first, then evaluate return quality
This compare GP3 vs Entrust page compares verifiable execution rules: payment terms, age boundaries, FX timing, lock-in windows, split boundaries, regulatory constraints, and financing risks. Core takeaway: verify contract executability first (e.g., GP3 single/3/5/10 vs Entrust 3/5), then compare returns.
If years 10-14 lock-in and mid-term income execution matter most, Entrust usually screens first; if years 2-3 conversion timing, 10-year cadence, or broader currency coverage matter most, GP3 usually screens first.
Public evidence is still insufficient for deterministic IRR winner claims; final decision still requires normalized dual proposals.
Evidence state: directional judgment yes, deterministic ranking no
Reader question model
Ask the right questions first, then compare plans to avoid return-first bias.
Payment modes, feature start years, and conversion windows differ; mismatched cadence makes later IRR comparison invalid.
Output action: Lock cashflow feasibility first (GP3 single/3/5/10 versus Entrust 3/5-year terms), then run normalized return comparison.
Entrust lock-in starts earlier (year 10) while GP3 starts later (year 15), affecting the sequence of stabilization vs growth.
Output action: Filter by lock-in window against your target cash-use year before comparing returns.
Both support multi-currency, but start year and application window direction differ.
Output action: GP3 starts after year 2 with a 30-day post-year-end window; Entrust starts after year 3 with a 30-day pre-anniversary window.
Public materials still lack a normalized matrix under same age, currency, premium term, and promotion treatment.
Output action: No. The core conclusion is execution rules first, return ranking second.
Yes. Under financing, the decision variable includes borrowing cost, margin pressure, and cashflow resilience.
Output action: Run dual stress tests (rate-up and dividend-down) before product ranking.
Round-2 enhancement audit (stage1b)
Find gaps first, then reinforce evidence before rewriting copy.
| Gap | Impact | Fix action | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Round-1 draft lacked version-conflict treatment | Mixing historical and current wording can mislead users on available payment terms and budget pressure. | Added explicit version boundary: GP3 brochure (2025-07) shows single/3/5/10 while Entrust brochure (2025-01) shows 3/5; execution must follow current proposal pack. | Closed |
| Round-1 draft incorrectly treated Entrust as having a 10-year term | It understates Entrust annual premium pressure and delays cashflow risk discovery until right before signing. | Corrected to 3/5-year terms per Entrust brochure (PPA_LB_ENT_0125), and added GP3 single-pay and 10-year boundary. | Closed |
| Lock-in/conversion conclusions missed frequency boundary | Users may read “available” as “unlimited”, creating over-optimistic execution plans. | Added “once per policy year” and window direction, with consequence of missing the window. | Closed |
| Return comparison lacked promotion normalization | Directly blending rebate into return overstates short-term performance and distorts long-term contract comparison. | Applied IA Practice Note 2.4 by requiring both promotion-included and promotion-stripped views. | Closed |
| GP3 minimum operation amounts still under-disclosed | High-frequency small-ticket users may discover thresholds too late during execution. | Kept this as “to be verified” with a pre-signing minimum fix: obtain insurer-written thresholds. | Partially open |
| Regulatory timeline had a delayed GL34 effective date | Users may assume participating-fund governance is not yet active and under-check disclosure quality. | Corrected to GL34 effective 2024-07-01 per IA text, and turned it into an ongoing post-effective review action. | Closed |
Key conclusion cards (conclusion-evidence-boundary-action)
Each conclusion includes boundary conditions to prevent over-generalization.
Conclusion: GP3 (2025-07 version) publicly supports single/3/5/10-year terms, while Entrust (2025-01 version) supports 3/5-year terms, so payment cadence itself is the first-screen variable.
Based on AIA GP3 brochure (PTA001308.0725) and Entrust brochure (PPA_LB_ENT_0125).
Boundary: Product pages, campaign pages, and proposal packs can drift; signing decisions must use the latest proposal and application versions.
Confirm executable premium cadence first (including whether you need 10-year or single-pay), then compare returns.
Conclusion: GP3 converts after policy year 2 (within 30 days after year-end); Entrust converts after year 3 (typically within 30 days before anniversary).
Based on brochure clauses from both plans.
Boundary: After conversion, projections must be recalculated under the new currency; original-currency illustrations are not transferable.
Calendar conversion dates explicitly; missing the window generally pushes execution to next policy year.
Conclusion: Entrust terminal bonus lock-in starts from anniversary 10; GP3 lock-in starts after policy year 15.
Based on lock-in feature sections in Entrust and GP3 brochures.
Boundary: Lock-in is not a guaranteed return; credited rates in lock-in account remain non-guaranteed and insurer-set.
If stabilization is needed in years 10-14, Entrust usually screens first; after year 15, compare both directly.
Conclusion: Both typically set split start at the later of anniversary 3 or premium-term completion, and split policies have no cooling-off.
Based on policy split clauses and notes in both brochures.
Boundary: Public materials do not provide your case-specific minimum split lot.
Run a dry simulation before split (insured/beneficiary setup, withdrawal path, tax impact).
Conclusion: GL28/29/30 plus Practice Note (effective 2025-07-01) define illustration, cooling-off, FNA, and cap-execution standards.
Based on IA guidelines and Practice Note primary text.
Boundary: Public pages cannot replace case-specific FNA or formal policy proposals.
Before discussing returns, complete FNA, cooling-off planning, and dual-proposal version checks.
Conclusion: GP3 publicly discloses a 90% cap, while Entrust discloses 80%.
Based on policy-loan clauses in both brochures.
Boundary: A higher cap does not mean lower risk; financing cost and market stress must still be tested.
Under financing analysis, always run a three-part sheet: loan cost, dividend downshift, and cashflow gap.
Conclusion: Public-level gaps still exist on minimum operation amounts and normalized IRR samples.
GP3 clauses often reference insurer-defined minimum amounts; Entrust also requires proposal-level verification.
Boundary: If gaps are forced into deterministic facts, final decisions become systematically biased.
Embed “to-be-verified” items into pre-sign documentation with audit trails.
Core evidence matrix (19 dimensions)
Replace subjective ratings with verifiable clauses.
| Dimension | GP3 | Entrust | Decision impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plan type | AIA GP3 multi-currency whole-life savings plan | Prudential Entrust multi-currency whole-life savings plan | Both are whole-life savings plans; key differences lie in execution windows, not category. | Both official product pages |
| Current public premium terms | Single-pay + 3/5/10 years | 3/5 years | If a 10-year premium cadence is mandatory, Entrust cannot match under current public version. | Official GP3/Entrust brochures (2025-07 / 2025-01) |
| Version-difference note | Single-pay wording appears in both the 2024-01 release and 2025-07 brochure | 2025-01 brochure explicitly shows 3/5-year terms while campaign copy may show selected examples only | Comparisons must include source version and retrieval date to avoid treating campaign copy as long-term contract terms. | AIA/Prudential releases plus official brochures |
| Issue-age boundary by premium term | Single-pay to age 80; 3/5-year terms to age 75; 10-year term to age 70 | Both 3/5-year terms up to age 80 | For ages 76-80 seeking staged payment, Entrust has wider public age allowance; GP3 typically shifts to single-pay assessment. | GP3 brochure p.22 + Entrust brochure p.15 |
| Policy term | Whole life | Whole life | Both fit long-term and legacy use; differentiation comes from early-to-mid execution paths. | Both official documents |
| Minimum annual premium (annual mode) | 3/5-year: USD 2,000; 10-year: USD 1,400 | 3/5-year: USD 2,000 | GP3 has a lower annual threshold on 10-year mode, but usable issue-age ceiling narrows earlier. | GP3 brochure p.22 + Entrust brochure p.15 |
| Published currency count | 9 currencies | 6 currencies | For broader currency diversification, GP3 offers larger candidate space. | Both brochures |
| Published participating-fund allocation boundary | Growth assets 20%-100%; bonds and other fixed-income assets 0%-80% | Equities and related investments 0%-70%; fixed income instruments 30%-100% | Both are participating products, yet published asset boundaries differ; lower risk-tolerance users should request conservative-path illustrations. | GP3 brochure participating-fund section + Entrust brochure investment philosophy |
| Conversion start | After policy year 2 | After policy anniversary 3 | For 24-36 month conversion plans, GP3 opens earlier. | Conversion clauses in both brochures |
| Conversion application window | Once per policy year; typically within 30 days after policy-year end | Once per policy year; typically within 30 days before policy anniversary | Window direction differs; scheduling discipline is required. | Brochure notes from both plans |
| Lock-in start | After policy year 15 | From policy anniversary 10 | For stabilization needs in years 10-14, Entrust often screens first. | Lock-in feature sections |
| Lock-in percentage | 10%-70% each exercise | Up to 60% each exercise | GP3 has a higher lock-in cap but starts later. | Lock-in clauses in both brochures |
| Split start | Later of anniversary 3 or premium-term end, once per policy year | Later of anniversary 3 or premium-term end, once per policy year | Split timing is similar; comparison shifts to post-split governance and beneficiary setup. | Policy split clauses in both brochures |
| Cooling-off after split | No | No | Parameter mistakes before split cannot be rolled back via cooling-off. | Notes in both brochures |
| Change of insured start | After first policy anniversary | After first policy anniversary | Both support succession transfer paths; compare downstream conditions. | Both brochures |
| Income feature start | No public equivalent of an explicit year-5 automatic income feature found | FlexIncome can start after anniversary 5 (subject to terms) | If early-mid cashflow is key, Entrust provides more explicit public wording. | Entrust brochure feature pages |
| Policy loan cap | No more than 90% of guaranteed cash value + reversionary bonus cash value + lock-in account value | No more than 80% of surrender value | Under leverage, Entrust discloses a more conservative cap. | Loan clauses in both brochures |
| Extended grace period | May extend to 365 days under specified conditions | May extend to 365 days under specified conditions | Both provide buffers under cashflow stress, but trigger conditions must be clause-checked. | Grace-period clauses in both brochures |
| Public transparency of minimum operation amount | Several clauses refer to insurer-defined minimum amounts without published figures | Some features disclose amount/ratio thresholds, yet proposal-level verification is still required | For frequent operations, minimum-amount evidence should be a pre-signing mandatory item. | Detailed clauses and notes in both brochures |
Execution hard metrics
Extract critical numbers into a verifiable checklist instead of narrative-only comparison.
| Metric | GP3 | Entrust | Decision impact | Time anchor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Published premium terms (latest brochures) | Single-pay + 3/5/10 years | 3/5 years | If 10-year payment cadence is mandatory, Entrust cannot be matched under current public version. | GP3 brochure 2025-07 / Entrust brochure 2025-01 |
| Highest issue age for staged premium | 3/5-year: age 75; 10-year: age 70 | 3/5-year: age 80 | For ages 76-80 without single-pay intent, Entrust more often survives first-pass feasibility screening. | GP3 p.22 / Entrust p.15 |
| Minimum annual premium (USD, annual mode) | 3/5-year: 2,000; 10-year: 1,400 | 3/5-year: 2,000 | GP3 10-year cadence has a lower annual threshold, but must be evaluated with issue-age cap and long-run payment stamina. | GP3 p.22 / Entrust p.15 |
| Published currency count | 9 | 6 | The more complex the currency mix need, the more optionality GP3 offers. | Brochure versions: GP3 2025-07, Entrust 2025-01 |
| Lock-in start year | 15 | 10 | If lock-in is needed in years 10-14, Entrust usually comes first. | Brochure clauses, retrieved 2026-03 |
| Lock-in percentage cap | 70% | 60% | GP3 allows stronger lock-in percentage but at a later start year. | Brochure lock-in sections |
| Policy loan cap | 90% | 80% | Risk tolerance differences become explicit under leverage strategies. | Brochure loan terms |
| Published equity-allocation upper bound | Growth assets up to 100% | Equities and related investments up to 70% | Both can absorb market volatility, but published risk-budget boundaries differ and require risk-tolerance aligned reruns. | GP3 participating-fund section / Entrust investment strategy section |
| IA levy rate | 0.1%, capped at HKD100 | 0.1%, capped at HKD100 | Same levy rate under regulation; not a differentiator. | IA levy page, retrieved 2026-03 |
| Illustration cap (effective 2025-07-01) | HKD 6.0% / non-HKD 6.5% | HKD 6.0% / non-HKD 6.5% | Proposal assumptions should be normalized; old high-rate assumptions need rerun. | IA Practice Note effective 2025-07-01 |
| Market timing: Hong Kong long-term new office premium (individual life and annuity) | H1 2025: HKD 115.2B (market total) | Same market backdrop | In active markets, prevent campaign-driven shortcuts replacing due diligence. | IA provisional statistics release 2025-09-30 |
Timeline and trigger points
All time-sensitive conclusions include explicit dates.
| Stage | GP3 | Entrust | Implication | Source date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product launch anchor | AIA release: 2024-01-02 | Prudential newsroom release: 2025-02-25 | Both are relatively new generations; long realization samples are still accumulating. | AIA/Prudential newsroom pages |
| Earliest conversion point | After policy year 2 | After policy year 3 | GP3 is more accommodative for year-2/3 conversion needs. | Brochure conversion clauses |
| Lock-in start point | After year 15 | After year 10 | Entrust better fits mid-term stabilization goals. | Brochure lock-in sections |
| FlexIncome / cashflow feature | No equivalent explicit public year-5 income clause found | FlexIncome available after anniversary 5 | Entrust has more explicit public wording for mid-term income use. | Entrust brochure |
| Split start point | Later of anniversary 3 or premium-term end | Later of anniversary 3 or premium-term end | Timing is similar and does not create a first-mover edge. | Brochure policy split clauses |
| Cooling-off (new policies) | IA GL29: 21 days | IA GL29: 21 days | The 21-day clock starts from the earlier of policy delivery date and notice date; there is a post-sign review window, but not after split. | IA GL29 |
| Illustration cap effective date | 2025-07-01 | 2025-07-01 | Older proposals should be rerun to avoid legacy high assumptions. | IA Practice Note |
| Participating-fund governance guideline effective | GL34 effective 2024-07-01 | GL34 effective 2024-07-01 | We are already in post-effective governance mode; quarterly review should track participating-fund disclosure and fulfillment-ratio updates. | IA GL34 |
Regulatory guardrails
Convert regulatory requirements into executable actions, not mere awareness.
| Rule | Requirement | Comparison impact | Minimum action | Source date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GL30 (FNA) | Financial Needs Analysis and affordability/risk assessment are required before sale. | If FNA is incomplete, no product comparison should progress to signing. | Archive the FNA record ID and reference it in proposal files. | IA GL30, retrieved 2026-03 |
| GL29 (cooling-off) | Eligible policies have a 21-day cooling-off period counted from the earlier of policy delivery date and notice date. | The review window is not a fixed 21-day extension from signature date; clock misread can compress cancellable time. | Add a start-date confirmation step before signing, then back-plan the 21-day review checklist with triggers. | IA GL29, retrieved 2026-03 |
| GL28 (benefit illustration) | Illustrations should present scenarios and key assumptions. | Cross-product comparison must align age, currency, premium term, and scenario assumptions. | Request dual normalized proposals with parameter pages attached. | IA GL28, retrieved 2026-03 |
| Practice Note (illustration caps) | From 2025-07-01, caps are HKD 6.0% and non-HKD 6.5%. | Older higher assumptions cannot be compared directly with new-capped proposals. | If legacy assumptions are found, request reruns under current caps immediately. | IA Practice Note effective 2025-07-01 |
| Practice Note 2.4 (campaign treatment) | Offers not reflected in projected values should be separated from illustration basis. | Campaign rebates should not be directly blended into IRR winner/loser judgment. | Keep two views in parallel: with campaign and without campaign. | IA Practice Note paragraph 2.4 |
| GL34 (participating fund guideline) | Effective 2024-07-01, requiring insurers to maintain governance frameworks and control procedures for participating business. | Comparison should not stop at illustrations; it must revisit participating-fund disclosures, smoothing approach, and fulfillment-ratio notes. | Set quarterly review checkpoints and archive disclosure-page version marks to avoid stale evidence. | IA GL34 |
| IA levy | Levy rate is 0.1% of premium, capped at HKD100 per policy. | Same levy treatment for both plans; not a key differentiator. | Keep IA levy as a separate line item in proposals to avoid omission. | IA levy page, retrieved 2026-03 |
Evidence gaps and minimum repair paths
Explicitly separate known/unknown/risk/next step instead of faking certainty.
| Topic | Known | Unknown | Risk | Next step |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GP3 minimum split/conversion amount | Public wording states minimum amounts are insurer-defined from time to time. | Exact figures and currency-specific thresholds are not fully listed publicly. | Execution may fail due to threshold insufficiency. | Obtain written threshold sheet before signing and archive it as attachment. |
| Normalized IRR sample set | Both offer official illustrations, but assumptions are not inherently aligned. | Public side-by-side samples under identical assumptions remain insufficient. | Pseudo-ranking risk arises from non-normalized samples. | Request dual proposals with identical parameters and run three-scenario stress checks. |
| Campaign-term persistence | Entrust campaign page shows staged rebate terms (retrieved in 2026-03). | Duration, eligibility details, and mapping to proposal parameters. | Short-term campaign terms may be mistaken as long-term return capability. | Separate campaign values from contract return data; never merge into one IRR figure. |
| Mid-to-late income stability | Entrust has clearer public wording for FlexIncome start. | GP3 equivalent path outcomes require proposal-level detailing. | Premature deterministic conclusions for retirement-income suitability. | Output year-by-year cashflow under same premium term and compare funding gaps. |
| Post-split governance cost | Both support split and remove cooling-off after split. | Public quantitative data on multi-policy governance complexity is limited. | Complex family structures may face operational errors and rising coordination costs. | Before split, predefine owners, beneficiaries, withdrawal paths, and documentation templates. |
Method and applicability boundaries
This page is decision support, not sales advice.
- Only primary, publicly verifiable sources are used (official/regulatory/original data).
- Core conclusions must carry evidence; insufficient evidence is marked to-be-verified.
- All time-sensitive facts are tagged with explicit dates.
- Users deciding between GP3 and Entrust or preparing parallel proposals.
- Users with explicit execution needs on FX timing, lock-in windows, and split governance.
- Users willing to decide through evidence instead of marketing tags.
- Users expecting deterministic return guarantees or instant quotations from one page.
- Users requesting immediate signing advice without completing FNA.
- Treating campaign mechanics as equivalent to long-term return capability.
Risk matrix (trigger-impact-mitigation)
Turn risk awareness into executable mitigation actions.
| Risk | Trigger | Impact | Mitigation | Evidence anchor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Campaign distortion risk | Campaign rebates are directly blended into long-term IRR comparison. | Short-term apparent edge masks long-term contractual differences. | Maintain two views in parallel: with and without campaigns. | IA Practice Note 2.4 |
| Premium-term mismatch risk | Treating Entrust as if it supports 10-year terms, or ignoring GP3 single-pay/10-year boundaries. | Budget and proposal loops are reworked repeatedly, with cashflow gaps discovered too late. | Lock three hard constraints on day one: available terms, issue-age ceiling, and minimum annual premium. | GP3 brochure p.22 / Entrust brochure p.15 |
| Window-miss risk | Conversion requests are not submitted in the correct window direction. | Execution is typically delayed by one policy year. | Set system reminders for pre-anniversary and post-year-end windows. | Conversion clauses in both brochures |
| Negative carry under financing | Loan rates rise or non-guaranteed returns are revised down. | Net return deteriorates quickly and may trigger additional funding pressure. | Run joint stress scenario: higher financing rate plus lower dividend. | Regulatory financing warnings + loan clauses |
| Irreversibility misjudgment after split | Assuming a 21-day cooling-off still applies after split. | Wrong parameters enter long-term contracts with high correction cost. | Conduct parameter rehearsal and legal/tax review before split. | Split notes in both brochures |
| Evidence staleness risk | Using stale campaign pages or old proposals for too long. | Comparison conclusions drift from current contract reality. | Review version IDs quarterly and rerun key illustrations. | GL34 (effective since 2024-07-01) + product update pages |
| Liquidity threshold opacity | Signing without written confirmation of minimum operation amounts. | Later conversion/split/lock-in operations may fail. | Add minimum amounts and approval conditions into pre-sign evidence pack. | Product clauses referencing minimum amounts |
Scenario walkthroughs (4 cases)
Each case includes what to compare first, why, and what to guard against.
Household with tighter annual budget, needing earlier income stabilization.
Compare first: Start with Entrust (earlier lock-in/income starting points)
Entrust starts lock-in at year 10 and FlexIncome after year 5, aligning better with mid-term goals.
- Do not blend campaign rebates into long-term IRR conclusions.
- Check cashflow pressure under the 80% loan-cap framework.
- Validate no-cooling-off irreversibility before split.
Plan is to start with one currency, then switch in years 2-3.
Compare first: Start with GP3 (earlier conversion window)
GP3 allows conversion after year 2, while Entrust starts after year 3.
- Confirm GP3 minimum operation amounts in writing.
- Execute strictly within the 30-day post-year-end window.
- Rerun illustrations after conversion; do not reuse original-currency assumptions.
Focus is on legacy execution rather than short-term campaign upside.
Compare first: Compare both in parallel (similar split start timing)
Both support split after year 3 and premium-term completion; differences lie more in post-split governance and lock-in path.
- No cooling-off after split, so parameter errors are costly.
- Define beneficiary, insured, and withdrawal rules upfront.
- Archive proposal version IDs and clause pages.
Does not want a full lump-sum commitment but still wants participating whole-life structure.
Compare first: Screen Entrust 3/5-year first, then assess GP3 single-pay affordability
Under published terms, GP3 staged-payment age ceilings narrow earlier (3/5 to 75, 10-year to 70), while Entrust 3/5 terms remain available up to age 80.
- Validate Entrust annual minimum premium (USD 2,000) against your affordable budget.
- If shifting to GP3 single-pay, evaluate opportunity cost and liquidity buffer simultaneously.
- Complete GL30 FNA for both sides to avoid dual mismatch in age boundary and cashflow capacity.
Action checklist by audience
Each group is directly executable without extra interpretation.
Objective: Avoid cashflow break during premium years
- Lock executable premium cadence first (GP3: single/3/5/10; Entrust: 3/5) and map it into budget sheet.
- Obtain dual normalized proposals under same age/currency/term.
- If issue age is 76-80, verify whether available premium terms are already constrained by age limits.
- Run joint stress test: rate-up plus dividend-down.
- Set trigger thresholds for the 21-day cooling-off review.
Objective: Reduce conversion execution errors
- Record conversion window direction and cutoff dates per plan.
- Obtain GP3 minimum conversion amount and approval conditions in writing.
- Rerun proposals after conversion; do not reuse original-currency IRR.
- Keep IA levy as separate line item to prevent cost underestimation.
Objective: Lower post-split governance errors
- Complete beneficiary structure and withdrawal authority design before split.
- Confirm no-cooling-off after split and run parameter dry simulation.
- Archive key clause pages and adviser written confirmations together.
- Set quarterly version review and track post-GL34 implementation changes.
Universal baseline actions
Complete all of the following before signing: FNA (GL30), normalized dual proposals (GL28), cooling-off planning (GL29), and illustration-cap alignment (Practice Note).
If you are moving toward signing, start with the checklist and adviser review under same age, currency, premium term, and campaign treatment.
FAQ (14 questions)
Covering method, clause execution, and risk implementation.
Sources and updates
Every major conclusion maps to traceable sources.
| Source | Date | Tier | Used for |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIA GP3 product page (Hong Kong) | retrieved 2026-03-06 | Tier 1 | Current public premium terms, issue-age range, currency count, and product positioning. |
| AIA GP3 brochure (PTA001308.0725) | 2025-07 version, retrieved 2026-03-06 | Tier 1 | Single/3/5/10 terms, issue-age limits, minimum annual premium, conversion/lock-in/split clauses, loan terms, and participating-fund allocation boundary. |
| AIA GP3 launch press release | 2024-01-02 | Tier 1 | Launch timing anchor and historical-version wording (including single-pay mention). |
| Prudential Entrust product page (Hong Kong) | retrieved 2026-03-06 | Tier 1 | Product positioning, feature entry points, and campaign-information boundary. |
| Prudential Entrust brochure (PPA_LB_ENT_0125) | 2025-01 version, retrieved 2026-03-06 | Tier 1 | 3/5 premium terms, issue-age limits, minimum annual premium, FlexIncome, lock-in start, split, and loan-cap clauses. |
| Prudential newsroom release (Financial Wellbeing Tracker) | 2025-02-25 | Tier 1 | Entrust market-launch communication timing anchor. |
| Prudential Entrust enhancement release | 2026-01-14 | Tier 1 | Campaign-term and version-update reminders. |
| IA Practice Note: Illustration Rate Cap | effective 2025-07-01 | Tier 1 | Illustration caps and campaign-separation rules (including 2.4 and 3.7). |
| IA GL28 | retrieved 2026-03-06 | Tier 1 | Scenario and disclosure requirements for policy illustrations. |
| IA GL29 | retrieved 2026-03-06 | Tier 1 | 21-day cooling-off requirement and start-point rule (earlier of delivery/notice date). |
| IA GL30 | retrieved 2026-03-06 | Tier 1 | FNA and suitability-assessment baseline. |
| IA GL34 (participating fund guideline) | effective 2024-07-01 | Tier 1 | Participating-fund governance framework, control procedures, and ongoing disclosure review. |
| IA levy implementation release | retrieved 2026-03-06 | Tier 1 | Levy standard of 0.1% capped at HKD100. |
| IA provisional statistics of Hong Kong insurance industry (H1 2025) | 2025-09-30 | Tier 1 | Market-timing backdrop showing why campaign-driven shortcuts should be avoided. |
Note: this page is a public-information research digest and not sales, legal, or investment advice. Case-level returns, breakeven periods, and withdrawal paths must rely on normalized proposals and formal policy clauses.
Methodology & Sources
E-E-A-T notes: methodology, sources, and author details.
Methodology
We normalize by currency, payment term, and sample age using official brochures/proposals. IRR and returns are illustrative (non-guaranteed) and used for relative comparison only.
Authoritative Sources
- Insurance Authority (HK) Annual Report
- Insurance Authority (HK) Statistics
- AIA Hong Kong
- Manulife Hong Kong
- Prudential Hong Kong
- FWD Hong Kong
- Sun Life Hong Kong
For other insurers, please refer to their official sites and latest product materials.
Author
Author: Su Jiang (GXBIBI research team). Content is based on public materials and policy terms.
Need Professional Analysis?
Everyone's financial situation and goals are different. Contact us for personalized advice.
Scan to add WeChat for consultation
• Free product proposal
• One-on-one Q&A
• HK visit booking assistance
Disclaimer
This page is for research and educational purposes only. Content is compiled from public sources and does not constitute insurance sales, investment, legal, or tax advice.
© 2026 GXBIBI. All rights reserved.