Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Diligent vs Riskonnect

Diligent logo

Diligent

Cybersecurity

Board management and enterprise GRC platform assembled from Galvanize, Steele and Diligent Boards

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

  • Each has a real cost: Diligent the platform is an assembly of acquisitions, with the analytics engine from ACL, risk from Rsam, ethics and third-party diligence from Steele and the board portal from Diligent itself, so cross-module reporting and consistent user experience should be tested in a proof of concept rather than assumed.; 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: Diligent covers Diligent Boards, Riskonnect covers Claims administration.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Diligent and Riskonnect actually diverge.

Attributes where Diligent and Riskonnect differ
AttributeDiligentRiskonnect
PlatformsWeb, iOS, Android, WindowsWeb, iOS, Android
CategoryCybersecurityInsurance

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

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 Diligent

  • Diligent Boards
  • Entity management
  • Audit and analytics
  • Risk management
  • Third-party risk
  • Ethics and compliance
  • ESG and sustainability
  • Market intelligence

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.

Diligent

  • A listed company that wants board papers, entity records and the audit committee reporting pack produced from one governance systemnot Riskonnect
  • An internal audit function moving from sampling to full-population transaction testing using the ACL heritage analytics enginenot Riskonnect
  • A regulated firm consolidating a whistleblower hotline, third-party due diligence and policy attestation after an enforcement findingnot Riskonnect
  • A group needing sustainability disclosure data collected with the same audit trail and controls as financial reportingnot 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 Diligent
  • A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot Diligent
  • A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot Diligent
  • A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot Diligent

Where each one falls short

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

Diligent

  • The platform is an assembly of acquisitions, with the analytics engine from ACL, risk from Rsam, ethics and third-party diligence from Steele and the board portal from Diligent itself, so cross-module reporting and consistent user experience should be tested in a proof of concept rather than assumed.
  • Pricing is unpublished and consistently at the top of the market, and organisations that need only one capability, a board portal or an audit analytics tool, generally pay less and get more from a specialist.
  • Renewal leverage is weak once the board portal is embedded, because directors are the least willing user group to be migrated and that dependency is well understood by the vendor at renewal time.
  • The analytics engine expects real data skills, and audit teams without an analytics-capable member typically use a fraction of what they licensed while paying for all of it.
  • Module-by-module implementation means the promised single view of governance and risk usually arrives years after the first purchase, if the later modules are ever funded.

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

Diligent

On request
  • Diligent One Platform$undefined/year
    • Quoted by module and user count
    • Board portal seats priced separately from GRC modules
    • Annual subscription, commonly multi-year

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 Diligent if

  • You need diligent boards.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android, Windows.
  • You also want entity management.
Diligent 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 Diligent or Riskonnect better?
Neither clearly leads. Diligent 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, Diligent or Riskonnect?
Diligent starts at On request and Riskonnect at On request.
Does Diligent or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
Diligent runs on Web, iOS, Android, Windows. Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is Diligent best used for?
Diligent is most often used for a listed company that wants board papers, entity records and the audit committee reporting pack produced from one governance system, an internal audit function moving from sampling to full-population transaction testing using the acl heritage analytics engine, a regulated firm consolidating a whistleblower hotline, third-party due diligence and policy attestation after an enforcement finding, a group needing sustainability disclosure data collected with the same audit trail and controls as financial reporting. Of those, a listed company that wants board papers, entity records and the audit committee reporting pack produced from one governance system and an internal audit function moving from sampling to full-population transaction testing using the acl heritage analytics engine are not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
What can Diligent do that Riskonnect cannot?
Diligent covers Diligent Boards, Entity management, Audit and analytics, Risk management. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Diligent: Is Diligent One the same product as Galvanize?

It contains it. Diligent bought Galvanize, the ACL and Rsam merger, for around one billion dollars in April 2021, and its audit analytics and risk modules are that heritage rebranded into Diligent One.

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.

Diligent: What does Diligent cost?

Not published. It is quoted by module and user, and board portal seats are priced differently from GRC seats. Expect an annual or multi-year enterprise agreement.

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.

Diligent: Can you buy just the board portal?

Yes, Diligent Boards is sold on its own and is the most common entry point. The GRC modules are separate purchases.

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.

Diligent: Does it replace a SOC 2 automation tool?

No. Diligent is aimed at enterprise audit, risk and governance, not at automated evidence collection for security certifications.

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 Diligent

More on Riskonnect

Keep looking

Other head to heads