Softwr

Insurance · head to head

Policyholders vs Riskonnect

P

Policyholders

Insurance

Insurance platform for brokers and agents

From
$99/month
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

  • They diverge on capability: Policyholders covers Policy management, Riskonnect covers Claims administration.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Policyholders and Riskonnect actually diverge.

Attributes where Policyholders and Riskonnect differ
AttributePolicyholdersRiskonnect
Starting price$99/monthOn request
Pricing modelsubscriptionquote
Founded2010Unknown

Identical on both: free tier (No), platforms (Web, Ios, Android), 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 Policyholders

  • Policy management
  • Client management
  • Commission tracking
  • Document storage
  • Task management
  • Calendar integration
  • Reporting and analytics
  • Mobile app

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.

Policyholders

  • Policy administrationnot Riskonnect
  • Client managementnot Riskonnect
  • Commission trackingnot Riskonnect
  • Agency operationsnot 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 Policyholders
  • A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot Policyholders
  • A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot Policyholders
  • A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot Policyholders

Where each one falls short

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

Policyholders

Nothing recorded yet. See the Policyholders review.

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

Policyholders

$99/month
  • Starter$99/month
    • Policy management
    • Client tracking
    • Basic reporting
  • Professional$299/month
    • All Starter features
    • Commission tracking
    • 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 Policyholders if

  • You need policy management.
  • You work on Web, Ios, Android.
  • You also want client management.
Policyholders 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 Policyholders or Riskonnect better?
Neither clearly leads. Policyholders starts at $99/month and Riskonnect at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Policyholders or Riskonnect?
Policyholders starts at $99/month and Riskonnect at On request.
Does Policyholders or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
Policyholders runs on Web, Ios, Android. Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is Policyholders best used for?
Policyholders is most often used for policy administration, client management, commission tracking, agency operations. Of those, policy administration and client management are not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
What can Policyholders do that Riskonnect cannot?
Policyholders covers Policy management, Client management, Commission tracking, Document storage. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

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.

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 Policyholders

More on Riskonnect

Keep looking

Other head to heads