Softwr

Insurance · head to head

EIS Group vs Riskonnect

EIS Group logo

EIS Group

Insurance

Coretech platform for insurers, strongest in group and voluntary benefits

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: EIS Group implementations run for years and the integrator you choose determines whether the programme lands, so a strong software evaluation with a weak partner selection still fails.; 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: EIS Group covers Group and voluntary benefits, Riskonnect covers Claims administration.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which EIS Group and Riskonnect actually diverge.

Attributes where EIS Group and Riskonnect differ
AttributeEIS GroupRiskonnect
PlatformsWeb, APIWeb, 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 EIS Group

  • Group and voluntary benefits
  • OneSuite core applications
  • Open API layer
  • Cloud-native deployment
  • Multi-line support
  • Digital engagement

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.

EIS Group

  • A carrier launching worksite or voluntary benefits products that need employer group and enrolment modellingnot Riskonnect
  • A multi-line insurer consolidating property, life and benefits books onto one core vendornot Riskonnect
  • A mainframe replacement where the target architecture must run in the carrier own cloud accountnot Riskonnect
  • An insurer that needs core services callable individually rather than one monolithic suitenot 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 EIS Group
  • A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot EIS Group
  • A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot EIS Group
  • A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot EIS Group

Where each one falls short

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

EIS Group

  • Implementations run for years and the integrator you choose determines whether the programme lands, so a strong software evaluation with a weak partner selection still fails.
  • The name recognition gap against Guidewire and Duck Creek means your reinsurers, auditors and incoming executives will ask you to justify the choice repeatedly over the life of the system.
  • Benefits strength does not transfer to personal lines, where you are comparing on general capability and the incumbents have more comparable references.
  • The microservices architecture that makes the platform flexible also raises the operational bar; carriers without a mature platform engineering function end up paying the vendor or an integrator to run it.
  • Licence costs are quoted per programme and scale with premium or policy volume, so a book that grows faster than forecast produces a renewal conversation you have little leverage in.

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

EIS Group

On request
  • EIS OneSuite$undefined/year
    • Policy, billing, claims and customer applications
    • Cloud deployment
    • API access

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 EIS Group if

  • You need group and voluntary benefits.
  • You work on Web, API.
  • You also want onesuite core applications.
EIS Group 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 EIS Group or Riskonnect better?
Neither clearly leads. EIS Group 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, EIS Group or Riskonnect?
EIS Group starts at On request and Riskonnect at On request.
Does EIS Group or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
EIS Group runs on Web, API. Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is EIS Group best used for?
EIS Group is most often used for a carrier launching worksite or voluntary benefits products that need employer group and enrolment modelling, a multi-line insurer consolidating property, life and benefits books onto one core vendor, a mainframe replacement where the target architecture must run in the carrier own cloud account, an insurer that needs core services callable individually rather than one monolithic suite. Of those, a carrier launching worksite or voluntary benefits products that need employer group and enrolment modelling and a multi-line insurer consolidating property, life and benefits books onto one core vendor are not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
What can EIS Group do that Riskonnect cannot?
EIS Group covers Group and voluntary benefits, OneSuite core applications, Open API layer, Cloud-native deployment. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

EIS Group: Who is EIS actually best for?

Carriers writing group or voluntary benefits, where the alternative is heavy customisation of a property and casualty platform that was never designed to model an employer group.

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.

EIS Group: Can it run in our own cloud account?

Yes. It is container-based and is deployed in customer-controlled cloud tenancies as well as the vendor cloud, which matters for carriers with data residency obligations.

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.

EIS Group: How much of the outcome depends on the integrator?

Most of it. Budget for the delivery partner as the larger line item and check references for the specific practice team, not the firm.

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 EIS Group

More on Riskonnect

Keep looking

Other head to heads