Softwr

Insurance · head to head

Riskonnect vs Verisk

Riskonnect logo

Riskonnect

Insurance

Integrated risk management and claims administration for corporate risk teams

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: 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.; 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: Riskonnect covers Claims administration, 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 Riskonnect and Verisk actually diverge.

Attributes where Riskonnect and Verisk differ
AttributeRiskonnectVerisk
PlatformsWeb, iOS, AndroidWeb, 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 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 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.

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

Verisk

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

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

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

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 Riskonnect if

  • You need claims administration.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want total cost of risk reporting.
Riskonnect 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 Riskonnect or Verisk better?
Neither clearly leads. Riskonnect 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, Riskonnect or Verisk?
Riskonnect starts at On request and Verisk at On request.
Does Riskonnect or Verisk run on more platforms?
Riskonnect runs on Web, iOS, Android. Verisk runs on Web, API, Windows.
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 Verisk is typically brought in for.
What can Riskonnect do that Verisk cannot?
Riskonnect covers Claims administration, Total cost of risk reporting, Policy and exposure management, Enterprise risk management. Verisk covers ISO forms and rating content, ClaimSearch, Extreme event models, Property data.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Verisk

Keep looking

Other head to heads