Insurance · head to head
Riskonnect vs Root Insurance
Riskonnect
Insurance
Integrated risk management and claims administration for corporate risk teams
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
Root Insurance
Insurance
Car insurance priced primarily on driving behavior measured through an app test drive
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Each has a real 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.; Root Insurance no specific pricing rates published on website
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Riskonnect and Root Insurance actually diverge.
| Attribute | Riskonnect | Root Insurance |
|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Web, iOS, Android | Web |
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 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
Only in Root Insurance
Nothing recorded that Riskonnect does not also cover.
What people use each for
The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.
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 Root Insurance
- A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot Root Insurance
- A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot Root Insurance
- A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot Root Insurance
Root Insurance
- Obtaining lower premiums through telematics-based driving behavior assessmentnot Riskonnect
- Stabilizing insurance costs for budget-conscious and single-parent driversnot Riskonnect
- Filing claims through mobile app within three minutesnot Riskonnect
- Accessing roadside assistance for towing and emergency lockout servicesnot Riskonnect
- Earning referral rewards by recommending to other driversnot Riskonnect
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
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.
Root Insurance
- No specific pricing rates published on website
- Quote-based model requires app download and test drive completion
- Rates calculated primarily on driving habits with telematics data
- Geographic restrictions apply (California and Maryland residents cannot use telematics-based pricing)
Pricing, plan by plan
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
Root Insurance
On requestNo published plan breakdown. See the Root Insurance review.
Which should you pick?
Choose Riskonnect if
- You need claims administration.
- You work on Web, iOS, Android.
- You also want total cost of risk reporting.
Choose Root Insurance if
Nothing in the data separates Root Insurance from Riskonnect on the points above - pick on price and on how each one feels to use.
Questions people ask
- Is Riskonnect or Root Insurance better?
- Neither clearly leads. Riskonnect starts at On request and Root Insurance at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Riskonnect or Root Insurance?
- Riskonnect starts at On request and Root Insurance at On request.
- Does Riskonnect or Root Insurance run on more platforms?
- Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android. Root Insurance runs on Web.
- What is Riskonnect best used for?
- Riskonnect is most often used for 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 renewal, a risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the cfo across claims, premium, retained losses and collateral, a third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platform, a multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reporting. Of those, 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 renewal and a risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the cfo across claims, premium, retained losses and collateral are not what Root Insurance is typically brought in for.
- What can Riskonnect do that Root Insurance cannot?
- 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.
Root Insurance: How much does Root Insurance cost?
Root Insurance does not publish specific rates. Customers receive personalized quotes after completing a test drive period (several weeks) in the Root app. Savings up to $1,300 per year mentioned for best drivers.
SourceRiskonnect: 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.
Root Insurance: How does Root determine insurance rates?
Root primarily bases rates on driving habits analyzed through smartphone sensor data and telematics collected during the app-based test drive period. Safe drivers receive lower personalized quotes.
SourceRiskonnect: 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.
Root Insurance: What is the Root Insurance pricing model?
Root uses a quote-based model where customers download the app, complete a test drive, and receive a personalized insurance quote. Rates vary by individual driving behavior and geographic location.
SourceRiskonnect: 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
More on Root Insurance
Other head to heads
- Riskonnect vs Origami Risk
- Riskonnect vs Duck Creek
- Riskonnect vs EZLynx
- Riskonnect vs SailPoint
- Riskonnect vs Embroker
- Riskonnect vs FINEOS
- Riskonnect vs FRISS
- Riskonnect vs InsuredMine
- Riskonnect vs Guidewire ClaimCenter
- Riskonnect vs Duck Creek Policy
- Riskonnect vs Applied Epic
- Riskonnect vs Five Sigma
- Riskonnect vs Haven Life
- Riskonnect vs Hippo
- Riskonnect vs INSTANDA
- Riskonnect vs Guidewire InsuranceNow
- Riskonnect vs Indio
- Riskonnect vs Snapsheet Claims
- Riskonnect vs Openly
- Riskonnect vs Semsee
- Riskonnect vs Socotra
- Riskonnect vs Metromile
- Riskonnect vs Next Insurance
- Riskonnect vs Novidea
- Riskonnect vs NowCerts
- Riskonnect vs Pie Insurance
- Riskonnect vs Guidewire PolicyCenter
- Root Insurance vs Origami Risk
- Root Insurance vs Duck Creek
- Root Insurance vs EZLynx
- Root Insurance vs SailPoint
- Root Insurance vs Embroker
- Root Insurance vs FINEOS
- Root Insurance vs FRISS
- Root Insurance vs InsuredMine
- Root Insurance vs Guidewire ClaimCenter
- Root Insurance vs Duck Creek Policy
- Root Insurance vs Applied Epic
- Root Insurance vs Five Sigma
- Root Insurance vs Haven Life
- Root Insurance vs Hippo
- Root Insurance vs INSTANDA
- Root Insurance vs Guidewire InsuranceNow
- Root Insurance vs Indio
- Root Insurance vs Snapsheet Claims
- Root Insurance vs Openly
- Root Insurance vs Semsee
- Root Insurance vs Socotra
- Root Insurance vs Metromile
- Root Insurance vs Next Insurance
- Root Insurance vs Novidea
- Root Insurance vs NowCerts
- Root Insurance vs Pie Insurance
- Root Insurance vs Guidewire PolicyCenter