phidea
← All tools

Duck Creek Claims vs Origami Risk — Claims administration for US insurance, 2026.

Duck Creek Claims (17 named carriers) and Origami Risk (4 named carriers) both sit at the claims administration layer. Zero customer overlap in the public roster — they are addressing different segments of the same stack layer.

Last verified 2026-05-27 · methodology

TL;DR

  • Duck Creek Claims has 17 publicly-named carrier deployments; Origami Risk has 4. Both at the claims administration layer.
  • Zero customer overlap in the public roster. Duck Creek Claims and Origami Risk are addressing different carriers within the same stack layer.
  • Both classified modern on Phidea's generation axis.
  • Both private-equity ownership.
  • Analyst coverage: 1 firm cover both, 0 only Duck Creek Claims, 3 only Origami Risk.

Customer overlap

BucketCount
Named on Duck Creek Claims only17
Named on Origami Risk only4
Named on both0
of which US-named on at least one side0

Only on Duck Creek Claims

  • Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance (US)
  • Hollard Insurance (AU)
  • Northbridge Financial Corporation (CA)
  • Tokio Marine (JP)
  • GEICO (US)
  • Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (US)
  • FCCI Insurance Group (US)
  • West Bend Insurance Company (US)
  • Society Insurance (US)
  • Skyward Specialty Insurance (US)
  • Shelter Insurance (US)
  • GAINSCO (US)
  • …and 5 more on the vendor card.

Only on Origami Risk

  • Tokio Marine HCC – Specialty Group (US)
  • Harford Mutual Insurance Group (US)
  • Gramercy Risk Management (US)
  • Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund (IIGF) (US)

Counts derived from 21sourced carrier-deployment entries across both vendor cards. Aggregate-only statements (e.g. “16 of the top 20”) excluded.

Stack position

Duck Creek Claims
Generation
modern
Stack layer
Claims administration
Founded
2000
Lines
auto, home, commercial, workers-comp, specialty
Replaces
mainframe claims systems
Origami Risk
Generation
modern
Stack layer
Claims administration
Founded
2009
Lines
commercial, workers-comp, specialty

Ownership and corporate context

Duck Creek Claims
Type
private-equity
Parent
Vista Equity Partners
Acquired
2023
Deal value
$2,600M

Source: Insurance Journal

Origami Risk
Type
private-equity

Source: Spectrum Equity

Carrier-segment specialization

Duck Creek Claims — geographic split

  • US
    14
  • AU
    1
  • CA
    1
  • JP
    1

Origami Risk — geographic split

  • US
    4

Analyst coverage differential

Both covered by
  • Insurance Journal · Duck Creek Claims (2023: Vista Equity Partners Completes $2.6B Buy of Duck Creek) · Origami Risk (2023: Origami Risk Acquires Illinois' Dais Technology)
Only Origami Risk cited by
  • Verdantix (2025: Green Quadrant: Risk Management Information Systems (RMIS) 2025)
  • Redhand Advisors (2026: 2026 Annual RMIS Report — Origami Risk recognized as market leader (8th consecutive year))
  • Spectrum Equity (2018: Origami Risk Receives Growth Investment from Spectrum Equity)

Recent news (last 12 months)

No news items in the last 12 months for either tool.

Sourced limitations

Duck Creek Claims
  • Public US-named deployments beyond Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance are thinner than Guidewire ClaimCenter's. The named roster is global (BHSI, Hollard, Northbridge Financial, Tokio Marine) but US-specific public references are limited relative to the larger ClaimCenter customer surface.
    Source: Insurance Journal
Origami Risk
  • Origami Risk is privately held and has never disclosed full financials, valuation, or transaction terms for any of its deals. Spectrum Equity's March 2018 minority investment was confirmed (roughly 15% of shares per Redhand Advisors) but dollar terms were not disclosed, and the 2023 acquisition of Dais Technology was also disclosed only as 'terms not disclosed'. Buyers evaluating long-term vendor stability have to infer capital structure from secondary sources rather than read it off a regulator filing.
    Source: Spectrum Equity
  • The P&C carrier core-system business is a more recent line for Origami than its original RMIS roots. The Tokio Marine HCC Specialty Group selection (April 2026) and the Harford Mutual multi-line claims migration (live June 2023) are flagship references on the carrier side, but the documented customer count for full policy/billing/claims P&C deployments remains small compared with established core-system incumbents like Guidewire and Duck Creek. Origami's pitch leans on the same platform handling RMIS, claims, and policy admin — the trade-off is fewer high-volume carrier reference accounts to point at.
    Source: BusinessWire
  • Third-party recognition is concentrated in the RMIS-specialist analyst world (Verdantix Green Quadrant 2025, Redhand Advisors' annual RMIS report) and the insurance trade press (Insurance Journal, Insurance Innovation Reporter, Carrier Management). There is no published Gartner Magic Quadrant or Forrester Wave placement for the broader P&C core-system or claims-admin market segments where Origami now also competes.
    Source: Origami Risk

Limitations published on Phidea are sourced to the underlying citation and reflect what is publicly named — not an exhaustive list. Consult the vendor card for the full record.

Frequently asked

Do any carriers run both Duck Creek Claims and Origami Risk?
Not in Phidea's public roster. Across 21 sourced carrier-deployment entries on both vendor cards, zero carriers appear on both. The two tools are addressing different carriers within the same stack layer.
Who owns Duck Creek Claims and Origami Risk?
Duck Creek Claims is PE-owned (Vista Equity Partners). Origami Risk is PE-owned.
Which has more named US carriers?
Duck Creek Claims has the larger publicly-named US roster: Duck Creek Claims 14, Origami Risk 4. Public-roster size is a coverage signal, not a quality signal — vendors with stronger NDAs may have larger actual US footprints than the public count shows.
Where are these tools positioned in the insurance stack?
Both sit at the claims administration layer. Duck Creek Claims replaces mainframe claims systems; Origami Risk operates as a standalone vendor.

Adjacent reading