Methodology

RiskStack publishes assessments of named companies, so how we reach them should be inspectable. This page describes what we score, how we weight it, where the information comes from, and what no amount of money will change.

What we cover

We currently profile 9 Certificate of Insurance tracking platforms. Coverage is editorial: we add a platform because buyers are evaluating it, not because it asked to be included or paid to be. A vendor cannot buy its way onto the list, and declining to engage with us does not remove a profile.

The eight criteria

Every platform is scored 0–10 on eight criteria. Each carries a default weight, shown below, reflecting how much it tends to matter to a typical COI program. The comparison tool re-weights these against your answers — a construction program with heavy Procore dependence gets integrations weighted up, a program drowning in vendor non-compliance gets vendor experience weighted up.

Scores are relative to this category, not to software generally. A 6 on reporting means average for a COI tracker, not average for enterprise software.

The market quadrant

The market quadrant plots platforms on two axes, each scored 0–100 with 50 anchored at the category median. Last reviewed 2026-Q2.

Architecture and innovation (horizontal)

• Carrier-direct verification partnerships — published, not aspirational
• AI integrated into the core verification workflow rather than bolted on
• Public release cadence and delivery against a stated roadmap
• API depth and integration breadth (Procore, AMS, ERP)

Market presence and scale (vertical)

• Disclosed customer count or named enterprise references
• Funding raised, as a proxy for investment in product and go-to-market
• Vendor network size where published, treated as one signal among several
• Broker reach and reputation

The four positions that result:

• Leaders — High on both axes — modern verification architecture combined with market presence and proven adoption.
• Established Players — Significant scale and customer base but operating on legacy verification architecture. Brand recognition without modernization.
• Innovators — Modern architecture or differentiated capability without the customer scale of the leaders. Worth watching; verify their fit for your specific situation.
• Specialists — Vertical or use-case specialists. Strong fit when your situation matches their focus, weaker fit otherwise.

Where the information comes from

• Public sources: vendor documentation, published partnerships, pricing pages, release notes
• Conversations with risk managers, brokers and compliance teams evaluating or running these platforms
• Hands-on review of the products where we can get access
• Vendor-supplied answers to our analyst questionnaire, verified against evidence before use

Where a claim rests on a single unverifiable source, we say so in the profile rather than stating it as fact.

Review cadence

The quadrant is reviewed quarterly. We deliberately avoid re-scoring without a citable change — a new partnership, a funding event, a leadership shift, a pricing reset, a documented customer outcome. Stability matters: a quadrant that moves every quarter on vibes is not measuring anything.

What vendors can and cannot change

Any vendor can claim their profile, free and permanently. Claiming gets them a published statement in their own words, clearly attributed, a link to their site, and factual corrections to things like pricing model, integrations, ownership and founding date.

These are not purchasable at any price:

• Position on the market quadrant
• Strengths and weaknesses assessment
• Recommendation order in the comparison tool
• Removal or softening of criticism
• Exclusion of a competitor

We do not accept payment for ranking placement or coverage. Where we charge a vendor, it is for a service — delivering buyer introductions that originate on their profile — and it changes nothing about the assessment. If that ever changes, it will be labelled on the page where it appears.

Corrections

Anyone — vendor, customer, competitor or reader — can send a correction to hello@riskstack.org, or a vendor can complete our analyst questionnaire from their profile page. Factual errors get verified and fixed. Disagreements with our assessment get read and considered; they may not change it, and we will tell you which of the two we think it is.

Limitations worth stating

• Scores are judgements, not measurements. Two reasonable analysts would not produce identical numbers.
• Pricing in this category is almost never public. Where we describe pricing we are describing a model, not quoting a rate card, and you should verify against your own quote.
• Software changes faster than quarterly review. Check anything material directly with the vendor before you rely on it.
• Our coverage is deep rather than broad. Ten platforms assessed properly is a different product from four hundred assessed thinly, and there are COI tools we do not cover.