Insurance should answer a question you already have

It comes from an obligation calculation rather than a rule of thumb: the income your household would need replaced and for how many years, plus remaining mortgage, education costs, final expenses, and any business or estate obligations, less assets already available to meet them. Multiples of salary are a starting reference, and they routinely miss by a wide margin in either direction.

It is better understood as insurance with a savings component than as an investment, and comparing it directly to a portfolio usually misleads. Permanent coverage can make sense when the underlying need is permanent, when you have already funded available retirement accounts, and when the policy will be funded consistently for decades. It is a poor fit when the need has an end date or when the funding commitment is uncertain.

When four things are true at once: the need it covers is permanent rather than ending on a date, you have already funded the tax-advantaged retirement accounts available to you, you can commit to funding the policy consistently for decades, and the policy is solving a specific problem you can name. Estate liquidity, a funded buy-sell agreement, and providing for a dependent with lifelong needs are the clearest examples. If none of those describe your situation, term coverage is usually the better answer and we will say so.

Separate the guaranteed columns from the non-guaranteed ones, and treat the second set as assumptions rather than outcomes. Ask what crediting rate is assumed and what happens if it comes in lower, what the internal charges are, what the policy requires from you in premium and for how long, and what happens if you stop funding it early. Any recommendation should survive those questions.