Insurance · head to head
Five Sigma vs Riskonnect
Five Sigma
Insurance
Cloud claims management with decision support aimed at insurers who cannot fund a full core programme
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
Riskonnect
Insurance
Integrated risk management and claims administration for corporate risk teams
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Each has a real cost: Five Sigma the reference base is small compared with established claims vendors, so procurement and audit committees will ask for viability assurances you cannot fully answer.; 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: Five Sigma covers Claim file management, Riskonnect covers Claims administration.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Five Sigma and Riskonnect actually diverge.
| Attribute | Five Sigma | Riskonnect |
|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Web, API | Web, iOS, Android |
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 Five Sigma
- Claim file management
- Automation rules
- Adjuster decision support
- Vendor and litigation management
- Configurable lines
- Reporting and data export
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.
Five Sigma
- A third-party administrator replacing a homegrown claims system without a multi-year programmenot Riskonnect
- An MGA taking claims handling in house from a delegated authority arrangementnot Riskonnect
- A mid-sized carrier that needs a modern claims system but cannot fund a core suite replacementnot Riskonnect
- A programme business that must report claims data to capacity providers in a consistent formatnot 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 Five Sigma
- A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot Five Sigma
- A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot Five Sigma
- A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot Five Sigma
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Five Sigma
- The reference base is small compared with established claims vendors, so procurement and audit committees will ask for viability assurances you cannot fully answer.
- Automation benefits depend entirely on your claim mix, and a book with high-complexity liability claims sees far less handling time reduction than a high-volume property book.
- There is almost no third-party integrator market, so implementation, configuration and later changes route through the vendor and its capacity becomes your constraint.
- Deep integration with legacy policy systems is your responsibility, and claims platforms are only as useful as the policy and coverage data flowing into them.
- Regulatory reporting for many United States states is not as complete out of the box as it is on platforms that have served American carriers for decades, so expect some reporting build.
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
Five Sigma
On request- Five Sigma Claims$undefined/year
- Claims administration
- Automation and decision support
- Configurable lines of business
Riskonnect
On request- Riskonnect Platform$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 Five Sigma if
- You need claim file management.
- You work on Web, API.
- You also want automation rules.
Choose Riskonnect if
- You need claims administration.
- You work on Web, iOS, Android.
- You also want total cost of risk reporting.
Questions people ask
- Is Five Sigma or Riskonnect better?
- Neither clearly leads. Five Sigma 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, Five Sigma or Riskonnect?
- Five Sigma starts at On request and Riskonnect at On request.
- Does Five Sigma or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
- Five Sigma runs on Web, API. Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android.
- What is Five Sigma best used for?
- Five Sigma is most often used for a third-party administrator replacing a homegrown claims system without a multi-year programme, an mga taking claims handling in house from a delegated authority arrangement, a mid-sized carrier that needs a modern claims system but cannot fund a core suite replacement, a programme business that must report claims data to capacity providers in a consistent format. Of those, a third-party administrator replacing a homegrown claims system without a multi-year programme and an mga taking claims handling in house from a delegated authority arrangement are not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
- What can Five Sigma do that Riskonnect cannot?
- Five Sigma covers Claim file management, Automation rules, Adjuster decision support, Vendor and litigation management. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Five Sigma: Who is the typical buyer?
Third-party administrators, MGAs and small to mid-sized carriers that need a real claims system without a core suite budget.
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.
Five Sigma: How does it compare with Guidewire ClaimCenter?
ClaimCenter has far more depth, references and integrator support, and costs correspondingly more with a longer implementation. Five Sigma competes on time to live.
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.
Five Sigma: What should we test in a pilot?
Adjuster handling time on your own claim mix. The commercial case rests on that measurement, not on the feature list.
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.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- Five Sigma vs Guidewire ClaimCenter
- Five Sigma vs Snapsheet Claims
- Five Sigma vs Origami Risk
- Five Sigma vs Socotra
- Five Sigma vs INSTANDA
- Five Sigma vs Novidea
- Five Sigma vs Better Agency
- Five Sigma vs ClaimVantage
- Five Sigma vs FINEOS
- Five Sigma vs Ivans
- Five Sigma vs BriteCore
- Five Sigma vs Policyholders
- Five Sigma vs QQCatalyst
- Five Sigma vs Root Insurance
- Five Sigma vs Semsee
- Five Sigma vs Shift Technology
- Five Sigma vs Guidewire InsuranceNow
- Five Sigma vs Duck Creek
- Five Sigma vs EZLynx
- Five Sigma vs SailPoint
- Five Sigma vs Embroker
- Five Sigma vs FRISS
- Five Sigma vs InsuredMine
- Five Sigma vs Duck Creek Policy
- Five Sigma vs Applied Epic
- Five Sigma vs Haven Life
- Five Sigma vs Hippo
- Five Sigma vs Indio
- Riskonnect vs Guidewire ClaimCenter
- Riskonnect vs Snapsheet Claims
- Riskonnect vs Origami Risk
- Riskonnect vs Socotra
- Riskonnect vs INSTANDA
- Riskonnect vs Novidea
- Riskonnect vs Better Agency
- Riskonnect vs ClaimVantage
- Riskonnect vs FINEOS
- Riskonnect vs Ivans
- Riskonnect vs BriteCore
- Riskonnect vs Policyholders
- Riskonnect vs QQCatalyst
- Riskonnect vs Root Insurance
- Riskonnect vs Semsee
- Riskonnect vs Shift Technology
- Riskonnect vs Guidewire InsuranceNow
- Riskonnect vs Duck Creek
- Riskonnect vs EZLynx
- Riskonnect vs SailPoint
- Riskonnect vs Embroker
- Riskonnect vs FRISS
- Riskonnect vs InsuredMine
- Riskonnect vs Duck Creek Policy
- Riskonnect vs Applied Epic
- Riskonnect vs Haven Life
- Riskonnect vs Hippo
- Riskonnect vs Indio