Softwr

Insurance · head to head

Riskonnect vs Shift Technology

Riskonnect logo

Riskonnect

Insurance

Integrated risk management and claims administration for corporate risk teams

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Shift Technology logo

Shift Technology

Insurance

AI-native fraud detection for insurance

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

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.; Shift Technology pricing not published on vendor website, requires demo request and quotation
  • They diverge on capability: Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Shift Technology covers Fraud detection.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Riskonnect and Shift Technology actually diverge.

Attributes where Riskonnect and Shift Technology differ
AttributeRiskonnectShift Technology
Pricing modelquotesubscription
PlatformsWeb, iOS, AndroidWeb, Api
FoundedUnknown2014

Identical on both: starting price (On request), 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 Shift Technology

  • Fraud detection
  • Claims automation
  • Document intelligence
  • Network analysis
  • Real-time scoring
  • Investigation workbench
  • Predictive analytics
  • Machine learning models

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 Shift Technology
  • A risk manager building a defensible total cost of risk figure for the CFO across claims, premium, retained losses and collateralnot Shift Technology
  • A third party administrator running claims for multiple clients that needs separate entity structures on one platformnot Shift Technology
  • A multinational consolidating claims, safety incidents and enterprise risk registers onto one entity hierarchy for board reportingnot Shift Technology

Shift Technology

  • Fraud detectionnot Riskonnect
  • Claims automationnot Riskonnect
  • SIU operationsnot Riskonnect
  • Subrogationnot Riskonnect
  • Underwriting risknot 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.

Shift Technology

  • Pricing not published on vendor website, requires demo request and quotation
  • No self-service onboarding; dedicated sales consultation mandatory
  • Solution requires on-premises deployment or custom SaaS configuration

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

Shift Technology

On request
  • Fraud Detection$undefined/year
    • Claims fraud detection
    • Network analysis
    • Real-time scoring
  • Claims Automation$undefined/year
    • Document analysis
    • Automated extraction
    • Workflow automation
  • Enterprise Suite$undefined/year
    • All modules
    • Custom models
    • Global deployment

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.
Riskonnect review

Choose Shift Technology if

  • You need fraud detection.
  • You work on Web, Api.
  • You also want claims automation.
Shift Technology review

Questions people ask

Is Riskonnect or Shift Technology better?
Neither clearly leads. Riskonnect starts at On request and Shift Technology at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Riskonnect or Shift Technology?
Riskonnect starts at On request and Shift Technology at On request.
Does Riskonnect or Shift Technology run on more platforms?
Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android. Shift Technology runs on Web, Api.
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 Shift Technology is typically brought in for.
What can Riskonnect do that Shift Technology cannot?
Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management. Shift Technology covers Fraud detection, Claims automation, Document intelligence, Network analysis.

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.

Shift Technology: How much does Shift Technology cost?

Shift Technology does not publish pricing on its website. The vendor requires a demo request and direct sales contact for custom quotations tailored to deployment scope and use cases. Pricing is quote-based and depends on specific implementation needs.

Source
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.

Shift Technology: What is Shift Technology's licensing model?

Shift Technology operates on a custom licensing model rather than standardized tiers. Pricing and licensing are determined through consultation with the vendor based on the number of users, data volume, and specific insurance processes being automated.

Source
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 Riskonnect

More on Shift Technology

Keep looking

Other head to heads