Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Resolver vs Riskonnect

Resolver logo

Resolver

Cybersecurity

Risk, incident and investigations platform for corporate security and operational risk teams, owned by Kroll

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: Resolver kroll ownership since 2022 means the product is sold alongside risk consulting services, so buyers who want software with no services attach should expect that conversation and should price the licence separately in negotiation.; 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: Resolver covers Incident management, Riskonnect covers Claims administration.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Resolver and Riskonnect actually diverge.

Attributes where Resolver and Riskonnect differ
AttributeResolverRiskonnect
CategoryCybersecurityInsurance

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), platforms (Web, iOS, Android), 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 Resolver

  • Incident management
  • Investigations
  • Internal audit
  • Compliance and obligations
  • Risk Event Management
  • Configurable dashboards

Only in Riskonnect

  • Claims administration
  • Total cost of risk reporting
  • Policy and exposure management
  • Health and safety
  • Third party risk
  • Data integration

Both cover

  • Enterprise risk management
  • Business continuity

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Resolver

  • A national retailer consolidating store incident reporting, loss prevention cases and investigations into one system with defensible evidence handlingnot Riskonnect
  • A bank that needs operational risk events captured against a risk and control register rather than in spreadsheets and emailnot Riskonnect
  • A university security operations centre running dispatch, case management and clery-style reporting from a single recordnot Riskonnect
  • An organisation that already retains Kroll for investigations and wants case intake and vendor handoff in the same platformnot 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 Resolver
  • A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot Resolver
  • A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot Resolver
  • A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot Resolver

Where each one falls short

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

Resolver

  • Kroll ownership since 2022 means the product is sold alongside risk consulting services, so buyers who want software with no services attach should expect that conversation and should price the licence separately in negotiation.
  • Configuration flexibility comes at the cost of implementation time, with deployments commonly running several months and typically requiring vendor or partner services, so the first-year cost is well above the annual licence.
  • Module-based pricing means the platform gets expensive quickly once you add audit, compliance and continuity to a security-led purchase, and modules bought later rarely carry the discount of the original deal.
  • The IT and cyber compliance side is thinner than dedicated tools, so organisations chasing SOC 2 or ISO 27001 evidence automation will find it does not replace a Drata or Vanta.
  • Reporting is capable but the drag and drop builder has a real learning curve, and organisations that do not train an internal administrator end up raising support tickets for changes that should be self-service.

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

Resolver

On request
  • Resolver Core$undefined/year
    • Priced by modules selected and number of users
    • Annual or multi-year enterprise agreement
    • Implementation and configuration quoted separately

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 Resolver if

  • You need incident management.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want investigations.
Resolver 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 Resolver or Riskonnect better?
Neither clearly leads. Resolver 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, Resolver or Riskonnect?
Resolver starts at On request and Riskonnect at On request.
Does Resolver or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, iOS, Android, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
What is Resolver best used for?
Resolver is most often used for a national retailer consolidating store incident reporting, loss prevention cases and investigations into one system with defensible evidence handling, a bank that needs operational risk events captured against a risk and control register rather than in spreadsheets and email, a university security operations centre running dispatch, case management and clery-style reporting from a single record, an organisation that already retains kroll for investigations and wants case intake and vendor handoff in the same platform. Of those, a national retailer consolidating store incident reporting, loss prevention cases and investigations into one system with defensible evidence handling and a bank that needs operational risk events captured against a risk and control register rather than in spreadsheets and email are not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
What can Resolver do that Riskonnect cannot?
Resolver covers Incident management, Investigations, Internal audit, Compliance and obligations. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Health and safety. Both handle Enterprise risk management, Business continuity.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Resolver: Who owns Resolver?

Kroll, which acquired it in 2022. It is marketed as a Kroll business and sold alongside Kroll risk and investigations services.

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.

Resolver: What does Resolver cost?

Pricing is not published. It is quoted by module and user count on an annual or multi-year enterprise agreement, with implementation charged separately.

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.

Resolver: Is Resolver a SOC 2 compliance tool?

No. It is a risk, incident and investigations platform. Automated evidence collection for security certifications is not its strength.

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.

Resolver: How long does implementation take?

Months rather than weeks for a multi-module deployment, and most customers use vendor or partner services to configure it.

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 Resolver

More on Riskonnect

Keep looking

Other head to heads