Softwr

Insurance · head to head

Ivans vs Riskonnect

Ivans logo

Ivans

Insurance

Carrier to agency data exchange infrastructure that sits under most US insurance agency management systems

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: Ivans applied Systems owns both Ivans and competing agency management systems, so the neutral infrastructure that every AMS depends on is controlled by one of the AMS vendors, a conflict that rival vendors have complained about for years.; 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: Ivans covers Ivans Download, Riskonnect covers Claims administration.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Ivans and Riskonnect actually diverge.

Attributes where Ivans and Riskonnect differ
AttributeIvansRiskonnect
PlatformsWebWeb, 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 Ivans

  • Ivans Download
  • Ivans Exchange
  • Ivans Distribution
  • Market Appetite
  • Download analytics for carriers
  • Commission download

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.

Ivans

  • An agency evaluating a new management system that needs to confirm, carrier by carrier and line by line, which data will actually download before it signsnot Riskonnect
  • A carrier launching a new line that wants agency systems to receive policy data automatically rather than by rekeying from a portalnot Riskonnect
  • An MGA that wants its book visible to retail agencies in the same download flow as admitted carriersnot Riskonnect
  • An agency operations lead auditing why commission reconciliation keeps failing, which usually turns out to be a missing or misconfigured download connectionnot 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 Ivans
  • A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot Ivans
  • A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot Ivans
  • A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot Ivans

Where each one falls short

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

Ivans

  • Applied Systems owns both Ivans and competing agency management systems, so the neutral infrastructure that every AMS depends on is controlled by one of the AMS vendors, a conflict that rival vendors have complained about for years.
  • Download coverage is decided by carriers, not by Ivans or your AMS, so a carrier that does not publish a line simply does not download it and no amount of configuration in your system will fix it.
  • Eligibility requires that you are appointed and writing the line in that state, meaning newly appointed agencies wait on carrier-side setup with little visibility into where the request sits.
  • Data quality varies sharply by carrier, and agencies routinely find that some carriers send incomplete or oddly mapped policy data that then has to be cleaned inside the AMS, undermining the point of automating it.
  • Pricing is opaque and largely invisible to agencies because it is bundled into AMS and carrier agreements, which makes it impossible to judge what the network actually costs your business or to negotiate it.

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

Ivans

On request
  • Ivans$undefined/year
    • Ivans Exchange is provided to agencies at no additional charge, with a possible fee for Citizens of Florida business
    • Carrier and MGA participation, Ivans Distribution and appetite products are quoted
    • Pricing is generally embedded in the agency management system or carrier agreement rather than billed separately to the agency

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 Ivans if

  • You need ivans download.
  • You also want ivans exchange.
Ivans 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 Ivans or Riskonnect better?
Neither clearly leads. Ivans 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, Ivans or Riskonnect?
Ivans starts at On request and Riskonnect at On request.
Does Ivans or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
Ivans runs on Web. Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is Ivans best used for?
Ivans is most often used for an agency evaluating a new management system that needs to confirm, carrier by carrier and line by line, which data will actually download before it signs, a carrier launching a new line that wants agency systems to receive policy data automatically rather than by rekeying from a portal, an mga that wants its book visible to retail agencies in the same download flow as admitted carriers, an agency operations lead auditing why commission reconciliation keeps failing, which usually turns out to be a missing or misconfigured download connection. Of those, an agency evaluating a new management system that needs to confirm, carrier by carrier and line by line, which data will actually download before it signs and a carrier launching a new line that wants agency systems to receive policy data automatically rather than by rekeying from a portal are not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
What can Ivans do that Riskonnect cannot?
Ivans covers Ivans Download, Ivans Exchange, Ivans Distribution, Market Appetite. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Ivans: Do agencies pay for Ivans?

Ivans Exchange is provided to agencies at no additional cost, with a noted exception for business written with Citizens of Florida. The economics sit with carriers and with the agency management system vendors.

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.

Ivans: Why is a carrier not downloading?

Almost always eligibility or carrier-side publication: you must be appointed and writing that line in that state, and the carrier must publish that line for download. Check the connection status in Ivans Exchange first.

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.

Ivans: Is Ivans owned by Applied Systems?

Yes. That matters because Applied also sells Applied Epic and EZLynx, so a competing AMS depends on infrastructure run by a competitor.

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.

Ivans: Can you switch AMS and keep your downloads?

Connections have to be re-pointed to the new system, which is a per-carrier request through Ivans Exchange and is a common source of migration delay.

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 Ivans

More on Riskonnect

Keep looking

Other head to heads