Insurance · head to head
INSTANDA vs Riskonnect
INSTANDA
Insurance
No-code product builder that lets underwriters configure and launch insurance products themselves
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
Riskonnect
Insurance
Integrated risk management and claims administration for corporate risk teams
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Each has a real cost: INSTANDA it is a product and policy layer, not a full core suite, so claims, finance, commissions and reporting are integrations you pay for separately and the total is well above the licence quote.; 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: INSTANDA covers Browser-based product build, Riskonnect covers Claims administration.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which INSTANDA and Riskonnect actually diverge.
| Attribute | INSTANDA | Riskonnect |
|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Web, API | Web, 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 INSTANDA
- Browser-based product build
- Rating configuration
- Document generation
- Distribution portals
- API access
- Product versioning
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.
INSTANDA
- An MGA launching a niche product in weeks and iterating rating without a development cyclenot Riskonnect
- A broker building an own-brand scheme on top of a capacity agreementnot Riskonnect
- A carrier running product experiments away from the core policy systemnot Riskonnect
- An embedded insurance programme where the product must be exposed through a partner APInot 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 INSTANDA
- A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot INSTANDA
- A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot INSTANDA
- A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot INSTANDA
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
INSTANDA
- It is a product and policy layer, not a full core suite, so claims, finance, commissions and reporting are integrations you pay for separately and the total is well above the licence quote.
- No-code configuration puts product logic in the hands of underwriters, which is fast but also means product changes can bypass the change control and testing discipline an IT-owned release would enforce.
- Complex rating that needs external models, machine learning scores or intricate referral hierarchies pushes past what browser configuration handles cleanly.
- Market presence is concentrated in the United Kingdom and Europe, so North American buyers will find fewer local references and less familiarity with state filing workflows.
- As configuration grows across many product versions it becomes its own maintenance burden, and without discipline you accumulate variants nobody remembers the reason for.
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
INSTANDA
On request- INSTANDA Platform$undefined/year
- Product configuration environment
- Policy administration
- Distribution portals
Riskonnect
On request- Riskonnect Platform$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 INSTANDA if
- You need browser-based product build.
- You work on Web, API.
- You also want rating configuration.
Choose Riskonnect if
- You need claims administration.
- You work on Web, iOS, Android.
- You also want total cost of risk reporting.
Questions people ask
- Is INSTANDA or Riskonnect better?
- Neither clearly leads. INSTANDA 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, INSTANDA or Riskonnect?
- INSTANDA starts at On request and Riskonnect at On request.
- Does INSTANDA or Riskonnect run on more platforms?
- INSTANDA runs on Web, API. Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android.
- What is INSTANDA best used for?
- INSTANDA is most often used for an mga launching a niche product in weeks and iterating rating without a development cycle, a broker building an own-brand scheme on top of a capacity agreement, a carrier running product experiments away from the core policy system, an embedded insurance programme where the product must be exposed through a partner api. Of those, an mga launching a niche product in weeks and iterating rating without a development cycle and a broker building an own-brand scheme on top of a capacity agreement are not what Riskonnect is typically brought in for.
- What can INSTANDA do that Riskonnect cannot?
- INSTANDA covers Browser-based product build, Rating configuration, Document generation, Distribution portals. Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
INSTANDA: Can underwriters really build products without developers?
Yes for mainstream product structures, and this is worth testing in a proof of concept with your own staff. Complex rating that calls external models still needs engineering.
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.
INSTANDA: Is it a complete core system?
No. It covers product, quoting and policy administration well. Claims, finance and commissions are separate systems you integrate.
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.
INSTANDA: Where is it strongest geographically?
The United Kingdom and Europe, particularly among MGAs. North American deployments exist but the reference base is younger.
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.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- INSTANDA vs Insurity Suite
- INSTANDA vs Duck Creek
- INSTANDA vs Majesco
- INSTANDA vs Duck Creek Policy
- INSTANDA vs Guidewire PolicyCenter
- INSTANDA vs Socotra
- INSTANDA vs BriteCore
- INSTANDA vs Five Sigma
- INSTANDA vs EIS Group
- INSTANDA vs FINEOS
- INSTANDA vs Hippo
- INSTANDA vs Indio
- INSTANDA vs InsurancePro
- INSTANDA vs InsuredMine
- INSTANDA vs Insureon
- INSTANDA vs Majesco Policy for L&A
- INSTANDA vs Guidewire InsuranceNow
- INSTANDA vs Ivans
- INSTANDA vs Origami Risk
- INSTANDA vs EZLynx
- INSTANDA vs SailPoint
- INSTANDA vs Embroker
- INSTANDA vs FRISS
- INSTANDA vs Guidewire ClaimCenter
- INSTANDA vs Applied Epic
- INSTANDA vs Haven Life
- Riskonnect vs Insurity Suite
- Riskonnect vs Duck Creek
- Riskonnect vs Majesco
- Riskonnect vs Duck Creek Policy
- Riskonnect vs Guidewire PolicyCenter
- Riskonnect vs Socotra
- Riskonnect vs BriteCore
- Riskonnect vs Five Sigma
- Riskonnect vs EIS Group
- Riskonnect vs FINEOS
- Riskonnect vs Hippo
- Riskonnect vs Indio
- Riskonnect vs InsurancePro
- Riskonnect vs InsuredMine
- Riskonnect vs Insureon
- Riskonnect vs Majesco Policy for L&A
- Riskonnect vs Guidewire InsuranceNow
- Riskonnect vs Ivans
- Riskonnect vs Origami Risk
- Riskonnect vs EZLynx
- Riskonnect vs SailPoint
- Riskonnect vs Embroker
- Riskonnect vs FRISS
- Riskonnect vs Guidewire ClaimCenter
- Riskonnect vs Applied Epic
- Riskonnect vs Haven Life