Softwr

Insurance · head to head

Riskonnect vs Vertafore Content

Riskonnect logo

Riskonnect

Insurance

Integrated risk management and claims administration for corporate risk teams

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Vertafore Content logo

Vertafore Content

Insurance

Digital content and marketing solution for agencies

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.; Vertafore Content the Internet Archive's capture of Vertafore's homepage on 31 December 2019 named the vendor's Content Management & Workflow category as ImageRight and WorkSmart, distinct products from a generic 'Vertafore Content' name, sold via demo request with no price figure published.
  • They diverge on capability: Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Vertafore Content covers Content management.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Riskonnect and Vertafore Content actually diverge.

Attributes where Riskonnect and Vertafore Content differ
AttributeRiskonnectVertafore Content
Pricing modelquotesubscription
PlatformsWeb, iOS, AndroidWeb
FoundedUnknown1969

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 Vertafore Content

  • Content management
  • Email marketing
  • Landing page builder
  • Analytics
  • Template library
  • Mobile responsive
  • SEO optimization
  • Integration tools

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

Vertafore Content

  • Digital marketingnot Riskonnect
  • Content creationnot 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.

Vertafore Content

  • The Internet Archive's capture of Vertafore's homepage on 31 December 2019 named the vendor's Content Management & Workflow category as ImageRight and WorkSmart, distinct products from a generic 'Vertafore Content' name, sold via demo request with no price figure published.

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

Vertafore Content

On request
  • Standard$undefined/month
    • Content management
    • Email marketing
    • Landing pages

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 Vertafore Content if

  • You need content management.
  • You also want email marketing.
Vertafore Content review

Questions people ask

Is Riskonnect or Vertafore Content better?
Neither clearly leads. Riskonnect starts at On request and Vertafore Content at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Riskonnect or Vertafore Content?
Riskonnect starts at On request and Vertafore Content at On request.
Does Riskonnect or Vertafore Content run on more platforms?
Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android. Vertafore Content 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 Vertafore Content is typically brought in for.
What can Riskonnect do that Vertafore Content cannot?
Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management. Vertafore Content covers Content management, Email marketing, Landing page builder, Analytics.

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.

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.

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 Vertafore Content

Keep looking

Other head to heads