Softwr

Insurance · head to head

FRISS vs Riskonnect

FRISS logo

FRISS

Insurance

Trust automation for insurance

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: FRISS no pricing plans, tiers, or costs are published on the website; 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: FRISS covers Underwriting risk scoring, Riskonnect covers Claims administration.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which FRISS and Riskonnect actually diverge.

Attributes where FRISS and Riskonnect differ
AttributeFRISSRiskonnect
Pricing modelsubscriptionquote
PlatformsWeb, ApiWeb, iOS, Android
Founded2006Unknown

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 FRISS

  • Underwriting risk scoring
  • Claims fraud detection
  • Network analysis
  • Real-time decisioning
  • Third-party data enrichment
  • Case management
  • Predictive analytics
  • Compliance monitoring

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.

FRISS

  • Fraud detectionnot Riskonnect
  • Risk assessmentnot Riskonnect
  • Underwriting automationnot Riskonnect
  • Claims investigationnot Riskonnect
  • Compliancenot 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 FRISS
  • A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot FRISS
  • A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot FRISS
  • A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot FRISS

Where each one falls short

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

FRISS

  • No pricing plans, tiers, or costs are published on the website
  • Requires direct contact through 'Let's talk' call-to-action for pricing inquiries

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

FRISS

On request
  • Underwriting$undefined/year
    • Risk scoring
    • Application fraud detection
    • Real-time assessment
  • Claims$undefined/year
    • Claims fraud detection
    • Network analysis
    • Investigation prioritization
  • Enterprise Platform$undefined/year
    • All modules
    • Custom models
    • Advanced analytics

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 FRISS if

  • You need underwriting risk scoring.
  • You work on Web, Api.
  • You also want claims fraud detection.
FRISS 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 FRISS or Riskonnect better?
Neither clearly leads. FRISS 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, FRISS or Riskonnect?
FRISS starts at On request and Riskonnect at On request.
Does FRISS or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
FRISS runs on Web, Api. Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is FRISS best used for?
FRISS is most often used for fraud detection, risk assessment, underwriting automation, claims investigation. Of those, fraud detection and risk assessment are not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
What can FRISS do that Riskonnect cannot?
FRISS covers Underwriting risk scoring, Claims fraud detection, Network analysis, Real-time decisioning. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

FRISS: How does FRISS publish pricing information?

FRISS does not publicly disclose pricing on their website. The company directs interested parties to contact their sales team directly for pricing and licensing details.

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.

FRISS: What pricing model does FRISS use?

FRISS does not specify their pricing model on publicly available pages, requiring direct contact with their sales team to discuss pricing structure and implementation costs.

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 FRISS

More on Riskonnect

Keep looking

Other head to heads