Death-Benefit Insurance · By Age & Goal

GUL · S-GUL · IUL · 10-Pay · Term
Which one fits you?

Insurance carriers price all permanent life products against the same actuarial curve — but the wrong policy type at the wrong age can collapse mid-life or burn cash that GUL would have locked in cheaper. Here’s when each one wins, and the chart that explains why.

The cost-of-insurance hockey stick

Why when matters more than what.

The internal cost-of-insurance (COI) charges inside every permanent policy follow this curve. Below 60 it’s manageable. Past 70 it accelerates. Past 80 it goes vertical — which is why IUL cash value collapses fast at older ages unless aggressively over-funded.

Cost of Insurance · $/yr per $1M DB Insured Age (single life, healthy non-tobacco preferred) $0 $25K $50K $100K $150K+ 40 50 60 70 80 90 UNDER 60 · IUL FITS 61–67 · CAREFUL 68+ · GUL ONLY $7.8K @ 50 $15.5K @ 60 $22.5K @ 65 $33.5K @ 70 $52K @ 75 $79K @ 80 — vertical Approximate annual GUL premium per $1M death benefit, healthy non-tobacco preferred. Real quotes vary ±10–20% by carrier.
Under 60 — flat, manageable, IUL window
61–67 — curve starts bending, GUL safer
68+ — vertical, IUL collapses without max-funding

What fits at your age

The same five products. Different answers depending on what side of 60 you’re on.

Under 60

IUL window is open

You have 30+ years for cash value to compound. Cost-of-insurance is still cheap. LTC accelerated-benefit riders are available and meaningful. Overfunding flexibility lets you handle good years and bad.

Best fit:IUL (with LTC rider) or 10-pay IUL. GUL is also fine if you want pure death-benefit certainty without the indexed cash-value play.
Age 61 to 67

GUL is safer · IUL only if max-funded

The cost-of-insurance curve starts bending. IUL works only if you’ll over-fund (max non-MEC) every year for 10+ years — otherwise rising COI eats cash value faster than indexed growth replaces it.

Best fit:GUL or 10-pay GUL for pure DB. S-GUL if a spouse is also insurable (~40% cheaper). IUL only with overfunding commitment.
Age 68 and up

GUL / S-GUL · IUL is usually a mistake

The hockey stick goes vertical. Without aggressive overfunding (which most retirees aren’t doing), IUL policies can collapse mid-life — cash value drained by rising COI, policy lapses, beneficiaries get nothing.

Best fit:GUL with no-lapse guarantee, or S-GUL (survivorship) if a spouse is insurable. Cheapest cost-per-thousand, zero rising-COI risk, locked-in death benefit.

Compare every type

All these compete to fund the same goal — legacy / wealth replacement / LTC coverage. The differences are real but specific.

Type Lifetime DB Guarantee Cash Value Growth LTC Rider Available Rising COI Risk Cost (per $1M DB)
GULGuaranteed Universal Life · single life · level pay ~ none $ (cheapest)
S-GULSurvivorship GUL · both spouses, 2nd-to-die none $ (~40% off single)
10-Pay GULPaid up after 10 yrs · no premiums in retirement ~ none $$$ (~2.6× annual)
IULIndexed Universal Life · indexed cash value ~ YES $$ (~10% over GUL)
S-IULSurvivorship IUL ~ YES $$ (~40% off single IUL)
Term10/20/30-yr, then expires ~ none (term) ¢ (cheapest, but ends)
Legend:✓ = built-in/guaranteed · ~ = optional rider or partial · ✗ = not available. Cost columns are relative — all dependent on age, sex, health, and term.
Where IULs go wrong at older ages

Why IUL at 68+ usually collapses (unless aggressively funded)

IULs are not bad products — they’re the wrong tool for someone who isn’t going to over-fund them. Here’s the mechanism:

Bottom line:If you’re 68+ and want guaranteed legacy/wealth-replacement after a property sale, the structurally correct product is GUL or S-GUL with a no-lapse guarantee. Keep IUL for ≤60s with overfunding capacity and a real LTC-rider plan.

Run your specific scenario through the advanced calc.

Toggle between GUL, S-GUL, IUL, and 10-pay variants. See the actual premium at your age + health rating. The age-based advisor will flag whether IUL fits or not.