The fundamental decision facing title companies evaluating automation solutions extends beyond technology selection to 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 that costs $2.50 per transaction becomes $60,000 annually at 2,000 monthly orders.
TrueFocus Automation offers both models through their platform at https://truefocusautomation.com. Clients can 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 the ownership conversation typically surfaces after companies have been using automation for a while. The financial implications change significantly 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.
"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." Beyond pure cost considerations, ownership addresses 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. With SaaS solutions, vendors control when updates deploy and how customizations get prioritized. Owned solutions allow companies to schedule changes around their own operational calendars and business priorities. 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.
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. The 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.
