Softwr

Insurance · head to head

EIS Group vs Verisk

EIS Group logo

EIS Group

Insurance

Coretech platform for insurers, strongest in group and voluntary benefits

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Verisk logo

Verisk

Insurance

Insurance data, ISO forms and rating content that most American P&C products are built on

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: EIS Group implementations run for years and the integrator you choose determines whether the programme lands, so a strong software evaluation with a weak partner selection still fails.; Verisk the ISO content has no real substitute for a carrier writing standard lines, so renewal negotiations start from a position where walking away is not credible.
  • They diverge on capability: EIS Group covers Group and voluntary benefits, Verisk covers ISO forms and rating content.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which EIS Group and Verisk actually diverge.

Attributes where EIS Group and Verisk differ
AttributeEIS GroupVerisk
PlatformsWeb, APIWeb, API, Windows

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), 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 EIS Group

  • Group and voluntary benefits
  • OneSuite core applications
  • Open API layer
  • Cloud-native deployment
  • Multi-line support
  • Digital engagement

Only in Verisk

  • ISO forms and rating content
  • ClaimSearch
  • Extreme event models
  • Property data
  • Xactimate
  • Underwriting analytics

What people use each for

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

EIS Group

  • A carrier launching worksite or voluntary benefits products that need employer group and enrolment modellingnot Verisk
  • A multi-line insurer consolidating property, life and benefits books onto one core vendornot Verisk
  • A mainframe replacement where the target architecture must run in the carrier own cloud accountnot Verisk
  • An insurer that needs core services callable individually rather than one monolithic suitenot Verisk

Verisk

  • A carrier filing standard commercial lines products that must use recognised forms and loss costsnot EIS Group
  • A claims organisation checking submitted claims against the industry database for prior activitynot EIS Group
  • A property insurer pricing catastrophe exposure for reinsurance placementnot EIS Group
  • An MGA that needs bureau content without building and filing proprietary forms in every statenot EIS Group

Where each one falls short

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

EIS Group

  • Implementations run for years and the integrator you choose determines whether the programme lands, so a strong software evaluation with a weak partner selection still fails.
  • The name recognition gap against Guidewire and Duck Creek means your reinsurers, auditors and incoming executives will ask you to justify the choice repeatedly over the life of the system.
  • Benefits strength does not transfer to personal lines, where you are comparing on general capability and the incumbents have more comparable references.
  • The microservices architecture that makes the platform flexible also raises the operational bar; carriers without a mature platform engineering function end up paying the vendor or an integrator to run it.
  • Licence costs are quoted per programme and scale with premium or policy volume, so a book that grows faster than forecast produces a renewal conversation you have little leverage in.

Verisk

  • The ISO content has no real substitute for a carrier writing standard lines, so renewal negotiations start from a position where walking away is not credible.
  • Pricing is negotiated separately per product and per line, and large insurers routinely find overlapping agreements across underwriting, claims and actuarial that nobody had counted together.
  • Circular updates to forms and loss costs must be loaded into your policy system on a schedule, which is recurring work that carriers with older platforms do partly by hand.
  • The breadth of the portfolio means account management is spread across product teams, so a problem in one service does not necessarily get attention from the people selling you another.
  • Usage-based components such as data prefill and claims searches make annual spend hard to forecast, and the variance lands in the year you grow fastest.

Pricing, plan by plan

EIS Group

On request
  • EIS OneSuite$undefined/year
    • Policy, billing, claims and customer applications
    • Cloud deployment
    • API access

Verisk

On request
  • Verisk Insurance Solutions$undefined/year
    • ISO forms and loss cost licensing
    • Data and analytics services by line
    • API access

Which should you pick?

Choose EIS Group if

  • You need group and voluntary benefits.
  • You work on Web, API.
  • You also want onesuite core applications.
EIS Group review

Choose Verisk if

  • You need iso forms and rating content.
  • You work on Web, API, Windows.
  • You also want claimsearch.
Verisk review

Questions people ask

Is EIS Group or Verisk better?
Neither clearly leads. EIS Group starts at On request and Verisk at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, EIS Group or Verisk?
EIS Group starts at On request and Verisk at On request.
Does EIS Group or Verisk run on more platforms?
EIS Group runs on Web, API. Verisk runs on Web, API, Windows.
What is EIS Group best used for?
EIS Group is most often used for a carrier launching worksite or voluntary benefits products that need employer group and enrolment modelling, a multi-line insurer consolidating property, life and benefits books onto one core vendor, a mainframe replacement where the target architecture must run in the carrier own cloud account, an insurer that needs core services callable individually rather than one monolithic suite. Of those, a carrier launching worksite or voluntary benefits products that need employer group and enrolment modelling and a multi-line insurer consolidating property, life and benefits books onto one core vendor are not what Verisk is typically brought in for.
What can EIS Group do that Verisk cannot?
EIS Group covers Group and voluntary benefits, OneSuite core applications, Open API layer, Cloud-native deployment. Verisk covers ISO forms and rating content, ClaimSearch, Extreme event models, Property data.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

EIS Group: Who is EIS actually best for?

Carriers writing group or voluntary benefits, where the alternative is heavy customisation of a property and casualty platform that was never designed to model an employer group.

Verisk: Can a carrier avoid ISO content entirely?

Only by developing and filing proprietary forms and rates, which a handful of large insurers do. For everyone else the filing and legal cost of independence exceeds the licence.

EIS Group: Can it run in our own cloud account?

Yes. It is container-based and is deployed in customer-controlled cloud tenancies as well as the vendor cloud, which matters for carriers with data residency obligations.

Verisk: Is Xactimate part of Verisk?

Yes. It came with the Xactware acquisition and is the dominant property claims estimating tool in North America, used by carriers and by the contractors they pay.

EIS Group: How much of the outcome depends on the integrator?

Most of it. Budget for the delivery partner as the larger line item and check references for the specific practice team, not the firm.

Verisk: Did Verisk sell off businesses?

Yes. It divested non-insurance units including its energy research business in 2023 and refocused on insurance data and analytics.

Share

Related pages

More on EIS Group

More on Verisk

Keep looking

Other head to heads