Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

MetricStream vs Riskonnect

MetricStream logo

MetricStream

Cybersecurity

Enterprise GRC suite for large regulated organisations, with implementation costs that exceed the licence

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: MetricStream implementation typically costs one and a half to two and a half times the first year licence, so a one million dollar licence carries a one and a half to two and a half million dollar rollout that rarely appears in the initial business case.; 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: MetricStream covers Enterprise and operational risk, Riskonnect covers Claims administration.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which MetricStream and Riskonnect actually diverge.

Attributes where MetricStream and Riskonnect differ
AttributeMetricStreamRiskonnect
PlatformsWebWeb, 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 MetricStream

  • Enterprise and operational risk
  • Regulatory compliance
  • Internal audit
  • Third-party risk
  • Cyber risk quantification
  • Policy and case management
  • Content libraries
  • ESG reporting

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.

MetricStream

  • A multinational bank mapping one control set against obligations from several regulators and needing to evidence the mapping to examinersnot Riskonnect
  • An insurer consolidating separate risk, audit and vendor systems that currently produce contradictory numbers to the boardnot Riskonnect
  • A pharmaceutical company that must track regulatory change across jurisdictions and show what each change affectednot Riskonnect
  • An organisation whose three lines of defence must share one risk taxonomy rather than three overlapping spreadsheetsnot 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 MetricStream
  • A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot MetricStream
  • A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot MetricStream
  • A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot MetricStream

Where each one falls short

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

MetricStream

  • Implementation typically costs one and a half to two and a half times the first year licence, so a one million dollar licence carries a one and a half to two and a half million dollar rollout that rarely appears in the initial business case.
  • Full deployment takes six to eighteen months, during which the organisation runs old and new processes in parallel and the promised efficiency gain is negative.
  • Per-user pricing in the low thousands per year per seat discourages giving access to the first line of defence, which is precisely where risk data originates, so many deployments end up with data still arriving by spreadsheet.
  • Configuration flexibility comes at the price of specialist skills, and organisations become dependent on MetricStream partners or a small internal team, making later changes slow and expensive.
  • The interface and workflow feel enterprise-heavy next to modern compliance tools, and infrequent business users find it hard, which suppresses the participation the platform is meant to enable.

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

MetricStream

On request
  • MetricStream GRC$undefined/year
    • Enterprise risk, audit, compliance and third-party modules
    • Regulatory content libraries
    • Multi-entity and multi-jurisdiction support

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 MetricStream if

  • You need enterprise and operational risk.
  • You also want regulatory compliance.
MetricStream 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 MetricStream or Riskonnect better?
Neither clearly leads. MetricStream 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, MetricStream or Riskonnect?
MetricStream starts at On request and Riskonnect at On request.
Does MetricStream or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
MetricStream runs on Web. Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is MetricStream best used for?
MetricStream is most often used for a multinational bank mapping one control set against obligations from several regulators and needing to evidence the mapping to examiners, an insurer consolidating separate risk, audit and vendor systems that currently produce contradictory numbers to the board, a pharmaceutical company that must track regulatory change across jurisdictions and show what each change affected, an organisation whose three lines of defence must share one risk taxonomy rather than three overlapping spreadsheets. Of those, a multinational bank mapping one control set against obligations from several regulators and needing to evidence the mapping to examiners and an insurer consolidating separate risk, audit and vendor systems that currently produce contradictory numbers to the board are not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
What can MetricStream do that Riskonnect cannot?
MetricStream covers Enterprise and operational risk, Regulatory compliance, Internal audit, Third-party risk. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

MetricStream: What does MetricStream cost?

It is quoted. Market data suggests roughly 75,000 to 150,000 US dollars a year for small enterprise deployments, 250,000 to 500,000 for medium and 750,000 upwards for large.

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.

MetricStream: How long is implementation?

Six to eighteen months for a full platform deployment, and the services cost usually exceeds the first year licence.

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.

MetricStream: Is it right for a mid-market company?

Usually not. Its depth suits organisations with several regulators and formal three lines of defence structures.

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.

MetricStream: Does it replace SOC 2 automation tools?

It can cover the framework, but it is not designed for the automated evidence collection those tools do cheaply.

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 MetricStream

More on Riskonnect

Keep looking

Other head to heads