Softwr

Insurance · head to head

QQCatalyst vs Riskonnect

QQCatalyst logo

QQCatalyst

Insurance

Vertafore agency management system for small independent agencies

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: QQCatalyst vertafore development investment is concentrated on AMS360 and Sagitta, so QQCatalyst receives maintenance rather than significant new capability and buyers should plan for that.; 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: QQCatalyst covers Client and 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 QQCatalyst and Riskonnect actually diverge.

Attributes where QQCatalyst and Riskonnect differ
AttributeQQCatalystRiskonnect
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 QQCatalyst

  • Client and policy management
  • Carrier download
  • Workflow and activity tracking
  • Commission tracking
  • Document management
  • Sales pipeline

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.

QQCatalyst

  • A small agency moving off spreadsheets and carrier websites to a system with real downloadnot Riskonnect
  • An agency that wants a Vertafore product without the cost and administration of AMS360not Riskonnect
  • A start-up agency that needs a policy system of record on day one for carrier appointmentsnot Riskonnect
  • A retiring principal keeping a small book running with minimal operational overheadnot 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 QQCatalyst
  • A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot QQCatalyst
  • A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot QQCatalyst
  • A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot QQCatalyst

Where each one falls short

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

QQCatalyst

  • Vertafore development investment is concentrated on AMS360 and Sagitta, so QQCatalyst receives maintenance rather than significant new capability and buyers should plan for that.
  • Leaving any agency management system is punishing because carrier download connections and years of policy history are bound to the vendor, and QQCatalyst is no exception.
  • Reporting is basic compared with AMS360, so agencies that grow into wanting book analysis end up exporting data and rebuilding reports outside the system.
  • Commercial lines servicing, particularly schedules, certificates at volume and complex account structures, is handled less thoroughly than in systems designed for larger agencies.
  • The upgrade path within the Vertafore portfolio is a migration, not a switch, so growth into AMS360 carries a second implementation and a second data conversion cost.

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

QQCatalyst

On request
  • QQCatalyst$undefined/year
    • Agency management system
    • Carrier download
    • Commission tracking

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 QQCatalyst if

  • You need client and policy management.
  • You also want carrier download.
QQCatalyst 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 QQCatalyst or Riskonnect better?
Neither clearly leads. QQCatalyst 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, QQCatalyst or Riskonnect?
QQCatalyst starts at On request and Riskonnect at On request.
Does QQCatalyst or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
QQCatalyst runs on Web. Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is QQCatalyst best used for?
QQCatalyst is most often used for a small agency moving off spreadsheets and carrier websites to a system with real download, an agency that wants a vertafore product without the cost and administration of ams360, a start-up agency that needs a policy system of record on day one for carrier appointments, a retiring principal keeping a small book running with minimal operational overhead. Of those, a small agency moving off spreadsheets and carrier websites to a system with real download and an agency that wants a vertafore product without the cost and administration of ams360 are not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
What can QQCatalyst do that Riskonnect cannot?
QQCatalyst covers Client and policy management, Carrier download, Workflow and activity tracking, Commission tracking. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

QQCatalyst: Is QQCatalyst still being sold?

Yes, as the entry point in the Vertafore agency management range. Ask directly about roadmap commitments and the cost of moving to AMS360 later.

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.

QQCatalyst: Why is switching agency systems so hard?

Because carrier download is the moat. Re-establishing download across every carrier and migrating policy history is the real cost, and it dwarfs the software fee.

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.

QQCatalyst: Who should not buy it?

Agencies with substantial commercial lines complexity or an acquisition strategy, both of which push you towards AMS360 or Applied Epic sooner than you expect.

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 QQCatalyst

More on Riskonnect

Keep looking

Other head to heads