Title companies evaluating automation solutions face a fundamental decision that extends beyond technology selection: who owns the code that runs their operations. Jimmy Lewis, Co-Founder and CEO of TrueFocus Automation, has observed this ownership question becoming the deciding factor in automation deals, particularly with larger title operations concerned about long-term costs and data security.
The traditional automation vendor model follows the Software as a Service approach where vendors retain ownership of the solutions they build, charging ongoing transactional fees based on usage volume. For title companies processing thousands of orders monthly, those fees compound quickly. A bot costing $2.50 per transaction becomes $60,000 annually at 2,000 monthly orders. TrueFocus offers both models, allowing clients to choose the SaaS approach with lower upfront costs or pay approximately $9,500 per bot for full ownership rights.
Sridhar Loganathan, TrueFocus's COO and Co-Founder, notes that ownership conversations typically surface after companies have been using automation for a while. "We've only had a few instances where this had to be addressed," Loganathan says. "Typically, the client will ask us for a price to acquire the exclusive rights for the bot code. We settle on a price between 1.5 to 2x the original build price because we've taken on the risk to build, support and optimize the bot on our dollar."
The financial implications become significant when volume scales. A title company processing 50,000 orders annually might pay $25,000 in transactional fees for a single automation. After two years, they've paid more than the ownership model would have cost, with no equity in the solution. Lewis explains that "some people just don't have the mindset to pay transactional rates for the next five to ten years. They want to own it. The bigger companies are really the ones asking for that."
Beyond pure cost considerations, ownership addresses critical data security concerns. Title companies handle sensitive financial information, social security numbers, and confidential transaction details. Some operations prefer keeping automation infrastructure entirely in-house rather than routing data through vendor-controlled systems, even with proper security protocols. The ownership model also provides control over maintenance timing and customization, allowing companies to schedule changes around their operational calendars and business priorities rather than depending on vendor schedules.
Lewis notes that mid-market title companies typically start with SaaS models to minimize upfront investment, then convert to ownership once they've validated the ROI. Larger operations often skip directly to ownership models, viewing automation as infrastructure investment rather than recurring operational expense. This decision reflects broader questions about technology strategy, with companies treating automation as a service prioritizing flexibility and minimal capital expenditure, while those viewing it as infrastructure investment prioritize long-term cost control and operational independence.
For title insurance automation specifically, the stakes are higher than typical business process automation. These bots don't just improve efficiency; they directly impact whether policies get issued accurately and on time. That criticality makes the ownership question more than a financial calculation—it becomes a question of operational control over mission-critical systems that determine business outcomes and customer satisfaction. The choice between owning or renting automation technology represents a strategic decision with lasting implications for financial performance, data security, and operational sovereignty in an industry handling highly sensitive information.
