Softwr

Insurance · head to head

CoverWallet vs Riskonnect

C

CoverWallet

Insurance

Business insurance management platform

From
Free
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

  • Only CoverWallet has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: CoverWallet no pricing information is published; redirects to AON Affinity.; 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.
  • They diverge on capability: CoverWallet covers Quote comparison, Riskonnect covers Claims administration.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which CoverWallet and Riskonnect actually diverge.

Attributes where CoverWallet and Riskonnect differ
AttributeCoverWalletRiskonnect
Starting priceFreeOn request
Pricing modeltransactionquote
Free tierYesNo
Founded2011Unknown

Identical on both: platforms (Web, Ios, Android), 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 CoverWallet

  • Quote comparison
  • Expert guidance
  • Online binding
  • Policy management
  • Renewal reminders
  • 24/7 support
  • Mobile app
  • Claims support

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.

CoverWallet

  • Insurance comparisonnot 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 CoverWallet
  • A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot CoverWallet
  • A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot CoverWallet
  • A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot CoverWallet

Where each one falls short

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

CoverWallet

  • No pricing information is published; redirects to AON Affinity.

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

CoverWallet

Free
  • Free AccessFree
    • Quote comparison
    • Expert advice
    • Online binding

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 CoverWallet if

  • You need quote comparison.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, Ios, Android.
  • You also want expert guidance.
CoverWallet 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 CoverWallet or Riskonnect better?
Neither clearly leads. CoverWallet starts at Free and Riskonnect at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, CoverWallet or Riskonnect?
CoverWallet has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for CoverWallet and On request for Riskonnect.
Does CoverWallet or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
CoverWallet runs on Web, Ios, Android. Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android.
Can I use CoverWallet for free?
Yes. CoverWallet has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Riskonnect starts at On request.
What is CoverWallet best used for?
CoverWallet is most often used for insurance comparison. Of those, insurance comparison is not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
What can CoverWallet do that Riskonnect cannot?
CoverWallet covers Quote comparison, Expert guidance, Online binding, Policy management. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

CoverWallet: How much does Coverwallet cost?

Coverwallet does not publish pricing online. The service uses a quote-based pricing model. Customers receive personalized quotes by contacting a personal advisor at (646) 844-9933 or requesting a quote online.

Source
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.

CoverWallet: What is Coverwallet's pricing model?

Coverwallet uses a custom, quote-based pricing model tailored to individual business needs and circumstances. Pricing is determined through direct consultation with an advisor rather than published rate cards.

Source
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 CoverWallet

More on Riskonnect

Keep looking

Other head to heads