Softwr

Insurance · head to head

Five Sigma vs Verisk

Five Sigma logo

Five Sigma

Insurance

Cloud claims management with decision support aimed at insurers who cannot fund a full core programme

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Verisk logo

Verisk

Insurance

Insurance data, ISO forms and rating content that most American P&C products are built on

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Five Sigma the reference base is small compared with established claims vendors, so procurement and audit committees will ask for viability assurances you cannot fully answer.; Verisk the ISO content has no real substitute for a carrier writing standard lines, so renewal negotiations start from a position where walking away is not credible.
  • They diverge on capability: Five Sigma covers Claim file management, Verisk covers ISO forms and rating content.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Five Sigma and Verisk actually diverge.

Attributes where Five Sigma and Verisk differ
AttributeFive SigmaVerisk
PlatformsWeb, APIWeb, API, Windows

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 Five Sigma

  • Claim file management
  • Automation rules
  • Adjuster decision support
  • Vendor and litigation management
  • Configurable lines
  • Reporting and data export

Only in Verisk

  • ISO forms and rating content
  • ClaimSearch
  • Extreme event models
  • Property data
  • Xactimate
  • Underwriting analytics

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Five Sigma

  • A third-party administrator replacing a homegrown claims system without a multi-year programmenot Verisk
  • An MGA taking claims handling in house from a delegated authority arrangementnot Verisk
  • A mid-sized carrier that needs a modern claims system but cannot fund a core suite replacementnot Verisk
  • A programme business that must report claims data to capacity providers in a consistent formatnot Verisk

Verisk

  • A carrier filing standard commercial lines products that must use recognised forms and loss costsnot Five Sigma
  • A claims organisation checking submitted claims against the industry database for prior activitynot Five Sigma
  • A property insurer pricing catastrophe exposure for reinsurance placementnot Five Sigma
  • An MGA that needs bureau content without building and filing proprietary forms in every statenot Five Sigma

Where each one falls short

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

Five Sigma

  • The reference base is small compared with established claims vendors, so procurement and audit committees will ask for viability assurances you cannot fully answer.
  • Automation benefits depend entirely on your claim mix, and a book with high-complexity liability claims sees far less handling time reduction than a high-volume property book.
  • There is almost no third-party integrator market, so implementation, configuration and later changes route through the vendor and its capacity becomes your constraint.
  • Deep integration with legacy policy systems is your responsibility, and claims platforms are only as useful as the policy and coverage data flowing into them.
  • Regulatory reporting for many United States states is not as complete out of the box as it is on platforms that have served American carriers for decades, so expect some reporting build.

Verisk

  • The ISO content has no real substitute for a carrier writing standard lines, so renewal negotiations start from a position where walking away is not credible.
  • Pricing is negotiated separately per product and per line, and large insurers routinely find overlapping agreements across underwriting, claims and actuarial that nobody had counted together.
  • Circular updates to forms and loss costs must be loaded into your policy system on a schedule, which is recurring work that carriers with older platforms do partly by hand.
  • The breadth of the portfolio means account management is spread across product teams, so a problem in one service does not necessarily get attention from the people selling you another.
  • Usage-based components such as data prefill and claims searches make annual spend hard to forecast, and the variance lands in the year you grow fastest.

Pricing, plan by plan

Five Sigma

On request
  • Five Sigma Claims$undefined/year
    • Claims administration
    • Automation and decision support
    • Configurable lines of business

Verisk

On request
  • Verisk Insurance Solutions$undefined/year
    • ISO forms and loss cost licensing
    • Data and analytics services by line
    • API access

Which should you pick?

Choose Five Sigma if

  • You need claim file management.
  • You work on Web, API.
  • You also want automation rules.
Five Sigma review

Choose Verisk if

  • You need iso forms and rating content.
  • You work on Web, API, Windows.
  • You also want claimsearch.
Verisk review

Questions people ask

Is Five Sigma or Verisk better?
Neither clearly leads. Five Sigma starts at On request and Verisk at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Five Sigma or Verisk?
Five Sigma starts at On request and Verisk at On request.
Does Five Sigma or Verisk run on more platforms?
Five Sigma runs on Web, API. Verisk runs on Web, API, Windows.
What is Five Sigma best used for?
Five Sigma is most often used for a third-party administrator replacing a homegrown claims system without a multi-year programme, an mga taking claims handling in house from a delegated authority arrangement, a mid-sized carrier that needs a modern claims system but cannot fund a core suite replacement, a programme business that must report claims data to capacity providers in a consistent format. Of those, a third-party administrator replacing a homegrown claims system without a multi-year programme and an mga taking claims handling in house from a delegated authority arrangement are not what Verisk is typically brought in for.
What can Five Sigma do that Verisk cannot?
Five Sigma covers Claim file management, Automation rules, Adjuster decision support, Vendor and litigation management. Verisk covers ISO forms and rating content, ClaimSearch, Extreme event models, Property data.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Five Sigma: Who is the typical buyer?

Third-party administrators, MGAs and small to mid-sized carriers that need a real claims system without a core suite budget.

Verisk: Can a carrier avoid ISO content entirely?

Only by developing and filing proprietary forms and rates, which a handful of large insurers do. For everyone else the filing and legal cost of independence exceeds the licence.

Five Sigma: How does it compare with Guidewire ClaimCenter?

ClaimCenter has far more depth, references and integrator support, and costs correspondingly more with a longer implementation. Five Sigma competes on time to live.

Verisk: Is Xactimate part of Verisk?

Yes. It came with the Xactware acquisition and is the dominant property claims estimating tool in North America, used by carriers and by the contractors they pay.

Five Sigma: What should we test in a pilot?

Adjuster handling time on your own claim mix. The commercial case rests on that measurement, not on the feature list.

Verisk: Did Verisk sell off businesses?

Yes. It divested non-insurance units including its energy research business in 2023 and refocused on insurance data and analytics.

Share

Related pages

More on Five Sigma

More on Verisk

Keep looking

Other head to heads