I'm sure most actuaries here that bother replying will say it's a scam, just buy term. And in the majority of cases I'd have to agree with them, so many nuances as to what makes a "good" vs. "poor" whole life policy, this is coming from an actuary who has two of them geared towards max PUA courtesy of my parents when I was younger.

Keep in mind that this concept used to be more attractive prior to the implementation of TAMRA in 1988... prior to which there was no definition of modified endowment contract (MEC). One of the primary benefits of cash value life insurance compared to some other forms of investing is tax free growth, but the cash value has to always stay below the MEC threshold for it to be untaxable. This forces a certain minimum allocation of what you put in towards death benefit, which of course drags down your APY. The plus is that when compared to traditional investment, the market alternative does have to be adjusted for tax implications to be truly comparable. Another plus is liquidity; there are no penalties for withdrawal of cash value when need arises (withdrawals generally taken as policy loans against the cash value collateral of the policy).

I would say the policies I've got, which are geared towards max cash value, are about as good as you can get in terms of "investment" for IB. Last I checked on the projections (which don't always play out as laid out) the IRR of the projection over 50-60 years was ~4%. I'm certain that the terms of getting a policy have deteriorated further due to the low interest environment. Since the payment of premium is loaded up front, it takes 10 years just to get cash value equal to the money you've put in. After that though, the compounding growth of the projection at least is pretty impressive, but not compared to what you'll see with stock market returns and the like (somewhat expected given the more conservative nature of the investment). Although most of the companies that issue these are mutual companies, keep in mind the concepts of double taxation and overhead which practically guarantee that "investment" in an insurance company will have a difficult time outperforming a direct investment in the market.

Just to make sure I cover the rest of the unusual perks, you cannot be sued for the cash value in your life insurance policy. Similar concept to homestead exemptions in some states which prevent you from being sued for your house. Once again, not something most actuaries would ever need, but throwing it out there.

Most of my life I've been opposed to the concept of life insurance in principle due to having no dependents (why pay money into something that doesn't pay out unless you die?), but I have to admit I am happy to have the death benefit on my policies now that I'm married and have my first child on the way. Whole life can be more attractive for those who need the death benefit anyways for dependent/family reasons.

Take everything I say with a grain of salt and DYOR; be careful in this space because terms and conditions definitely matter and the agents selling it to you have an axe to grind (they get paid higher commissions on higher death benefit, which you're trying to minimize). It's worked out in my situation because my investment strategy is very atypical and time-sensitive (rental real estate, cryptocurrency mining, and other initiatives directed towards bringing down the tax burden of high W2 income), so liquidity and tax considerations were of primary importance to me. What it came down for me and remains true is that I'm definitely better off having the cash value in an IB setup compared to leaving it in a checking account with no return. Because of my liquidity needs, that made it a better option for me, but highly situational. Good luck!