Softwr

Insurance · head to head

Applied Epic vs Riskonnect

Applied Epic logo

Applied Epic

Insurance

The most connected agency management system

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Riskonnect logo

Riskonnect

Insurance

Integrated risk management and claims administration for corporate risk teams

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • They diverge on capability: Applied Epic covers Policy management, Riskonnect covers Claims administration.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Applied Epic and Riskonnect actually diverge.

Attributes where Applied Epic and Riskonnect differ
AttributeApplied EpicRiskonnect
Pricing modelsubscriptionquote
PlatformsWeb, Windows, Ios, AndroidWeb, iOS, Android
Founded1983Unknown

Identical on both: starting price (On request), free tier (No), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Insurance).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Applied Epic

  • Policy management
  • Client management
  • Commission tracking
  • Document management
  • Real-time carrier downloads
  • Workflow automation
  • Accounting integration
  • Mobile access

Only in Riskonnect

  • Claims administration
  • Total cost of risk reporting
  • Policy and exposure management
  • Enterprise risk management
  • Health and safety
  • Business continuity
  • Third party risk
  • Data integration

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Applied Epic

  • Agency managementnot Riskonnect
  • Policy administrationnot Riskonnect
  • Commission managementnot Riskonnect
  • Client servicingnot Riskonnect
  • Carrier connectivitynot Riskonnect

Riskonnect

  • A self insured employer that wants to own its workers compensation loss data rather than depend on the broker or TPA system it will lose at renewalnot Applied Epic
  • A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot Applied Epic
  • A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot Applied Epic
  • A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot Applied Epic

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Applied Epic

Nothing recorded yet. See the Applied Epic review.

Riskonnect

  • Total first year cost is dominated by implementation rather than licence; vendor professional services frequently approach the annual licence figure and the internal staff time to define data structures and migrate historic claims is a comparable third cost that never appears in the quote.
  • The platform grew through acquisitions including Ventiv and Sword GRC, so module interfaces and administration models are not uniform and staff trained on one module do not transfer cleanly to another.
  • Licensing is modular, so the price quoted for a claims deployment rises materially the first time the risk team wants ERM or business continuity, and there is little negotiating leverage once the claims data is migrated.
  • Configuration depth means most changes go through an administrator or the vendor rather than an end user, and risk teams without a dedicated system administrator find that change requests queue for weeks.
  • Historic claims data migration quality depends entirely on what the outgoing broker or TPA will export, and incomplete legacy data undermines the multi year trend reporting that was the reason for buying.

Pricing, plan by plan

Applied Epic

On request
  • Applied Epic$undefined/month
    • Policy management
    • Commission tracking
    • Client portal
  • Enterprise$undefined/month
    • Everything in Standard
    • Advanced analytics
    • Custom integrations

Riskonnect

On request
  • Riskonnect Platform$undefined/year
    • Licensed by module, named user count and entity structure
    • Claims administration and RMIS core
    • Optional ERM, safety, continuity and third party risk modules

Which should you pick?

Choose Applied Epic if

  • You need policy management.
  • You work on Web, Windows, Ios, Android.
  • You also want client management.
Applied Epic review

Choose Riskonnect if

  • You need claims administration.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want total cost of risk reporting.
Riskonnect review

Questions people ask

Is Applied Epic or Riskonnect better?
Neither clearly leads. Applied Epic starts at On request and Riskonnect at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Applied Epic or Riskonnect?
Applied Epic starts at On request and Riskonnect at On request.
Does Applied Epic or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
Applied Epic runs on Web, Windows, Ios, Android. Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is Applied Epic best used for?
Applied Epic is most often used for agency management, policy administration, commission management, client servicing. Of those, agency management and policy administration are not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
What can Applied Epic do that Riskonnect cannot?
Applied Epic covers Policy management, Client management, Commission tracking, Document management. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Riskonnect: What does Riskonnect actually cost?

Nothing is published. Reported deals range from roughly 35,000 US dollars a year for a narrow deployment to well over 250,000 for a multi module enterprise programme, with implementation services quoted separately and often of similar magnitude in year one.

Riskonnect: How long does implementation take?

Three to six months is typical for a claims and RMIS deployment, longer where historic loss data from several brokers or TPAs has to be normalised.

Riskonnect: Why not just use the broker supplied RMIS?

Because you lose it when you change broker, and the data model serves the broker reporting rather than yours. Owning the system is the main reason companies pay for one.

Riskonnect: Is it a GRC platform or a claims system?

Both, but the claims and insurable risk core is the mature part. If you want pure GRC without claims, you are buying more platform than you need.

Share

Related pages

More on Applied Epic

More on Riskonnect

Keep looking

Other head to heads