This is deliberately not a price comparison. Adler & Rochefort does not rank insurers on premium, and for these four routes specifically, price is the wrong first question — acceptance is. What each will take on, and on what terms, decides which of them is even available to you before cost enters the conversation.

RouteAcceptance modelWhere it fits
AllianzIndividual medical underwriting, with a combination of network access and reimbursement for treatment outside it.Applicants who clear conventional underwriting and want flexibility to be treated outside Portugal as well as in it.
MédisIndividual medical underwriting, network-based with copayments inside the network. Placed through Adler & Rochefort's agency agreement with Zurich, not a direct Médis agency.Applicants who clear conventional underwriting and want the largest domestic network with low copayments.
APRILIndividual medical underwriting, generally lighter than a domestic Portuguese insurer's, with a reimbursement model and international portability.Internationally mobile applicants, and those who want English- or French-language service and cover that travels with them.
MGENMembership-based, no medical questionnaire, no upper entry age. Pre-existing conditions covered after a 365-day waiting period.Applicants declined, excluded or age-limited out of the three routes above.

Why acceptance, not price, is the right comparison

An insurer's premium only matters once you know it will actually accept the risk. Someone who clears conventional underwriting cleanly has three genuine options among Allianz, Médis and APRIL, each with a different shape of network and service — and no obvious reason to consider a membership-based route with a waiting period attached. Someone who does not clear conventional underwriting is looking at a different question entirely, where MGEN is often the only route that actually accepts the case, and price comparison among the other three is moot because they are not offering terms at all.

The Médis route, stated plainly

Médis policies are placed through Adler & Rochefort's agency agreement with Zurich — we do not hold a direct Médis agency. This does not change what Médis cover offers; it is the route through which we place it, and we state it here rather than leave it implied.

Allianz and international reach

Allianz's combination of network access with reimbursement for treatment taken outside it suits someone who wants the option of being treated abroad without changing insurer — a genuinely different priority from someone who only ever expects to be treated in Portugal.

APRIL and portability

APRIL's underwriting is generally lighter than a domestic Portuguese insurer's, and its reimbursement model and English/French service suit an internationally mobile applicant more than someone settling permanently in one place. See our APRIL review for the detail.

MGEN when the other three are not the question

Once a decline, an exclusion or an age cut-off has taken Allianz, Médis and APRIL off the table, MGEN's membership-based acceptance becomes the live comparison — not against those three on price, but against the alternative of no private cover at all. See how the mechanism works for the waiting period and what it trades off.

What we actually do

We take your declared history and situation, and tell you honestly which of these four routes would actually accept you, on what terms, before any application goes in — in writing.

Not sure which route would accept you?

Tell us your situation and we will set out, in writing, which of these four would actually take the case.

Adler & Rochefort is a commercial brand of Ownizo, Unipessoal Lda., registered with the Portuguese Insurance and Pension Funds Supervisory Authority (ASF) under no. 425591790/3. General information only, not personalised advice; each insurer's underwriting outcome depends on the individual application. Médis is placed through our agency agreement with Zurich.

More on this subject: MGEN: membership-based cover without a questionnaire · APRIL International reviewed · Médis reviewed