Asurity RiskExec vs Cogent QC Systems

What the rubric says

Asurity RiskExec and Cogent QC Systems are both scored in Compliance & QC. Asurity RiskExec carries an overall of 4.3, Cogent QC Systems an overall of 2.9. The widest gap between them is Adoption and support, at 1.8 of a point. That axis measures whether the team adopts it and gets unstuck. Asurity RiskExec takes it, 4.4 to 2.6.

Where the five axes separate

On Adoption and support the record favours Asurity RiskExec, 4.4 against 2.6. On Functionality and depth the record favours Asurity RiskExec, 4.9 against 3.3. On Integrations and ecosystem the record favours Asurity RiskExec, 3.7 against 2.1. On Return on spend the record favours Asurity RiskExec, 4.4 against 3.3. On Production impact the record favours Asurity RiskExec, 3.8 against 2.8.

Pricing posture

Asurity RiskExec does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only, saas subscription. Cogent QC Systems does not publish pricing. Its listed model is flat fee licence with no per-user or per-audit charge; amount not published.

Deployment and who each one targets

Deployment for Asurity RiskExec: Cloud SaaS, data file upload. Deployment for Cogent QC Systems: On premise, installed behind the client firewall against the client’s SQL Server. Segment focus for Asurity RiskExec: Banks, credit unions, and lenders with HMDA, CRA, and fair lending reporting duties. Segment focus for Cogent QC Systems: Lenders and servicers that want QC data to stay inside their own network. The two entries name different buyers.

What each record credits

Asurity RiskExec: Eight modules: HMDA, CRA, fair lending, fair servicing, 1071, community development, geocoding, redlining. Asurity RiskExec: Redlining and peer comparison run as first-class tools, not HMDA report add-ons. Asurity RiskExec: Preliminary modified LAR data reaches users before the regulators’ release, a timing edge. Cogent QC Systems: On-premise deployment keeps loan-level data in-house, resolving a class of vendor risk review. Cogent QC Systems: Flat fee with no per-user or per-audit charge keeps cost predictable as volume grows. Cogent QC Systems: Statistical sampling treated as a core competency, with published material on sampling design.

What each record holds against them

Asurity RiskExec: Integrations section names no specific LOS, core or data warehouse connection. Asurity RiskExec: Analysis quality depends on the loan file you supply; upstream data stays unfixed. Asurity RiskExec: No loan-level QC, document review or audit workflow, so a QC platform stays. Cogent QC Systems: No LOS integration or import method named, so data ingestion is entirely your project. Cogent QC Systems: On-premise deployment pushes database administration and patching onto the buyer, infrastructure cost too. Cogent QC Systems: No hosted or SaaS option, ruling it out under cloud-only technology policies.

Which one fits which shop

Best fit for Asurity RiskExec: A compliance team preparing for a fair lending or redlining exam. Best fit for Cogent QC Systems: A risk team that needs statistically defensible sampling and refuses to send loan data. to a vendor cloud.

What each entry concludes

Asurity RiskExec: RiskExec is regulatory analytics, not loan QC. Asurity RiskExec: Modules cover HMDA, CRA, fair lending disposition and peer analysis, redlining, fair servicing and 1071 lending. Cogent QC Systems: Cogent QC Systems is the deliberately unfashionable option: software behind your own firewall, data in your own. Cogent QC Systems: It sells on a flat fee, with no per-user or per-audit charge.

The short answer

Asurity RiskExec finishes ahead on the published rubric, 4.3 to 2.9. The margin comes mostly from Adoption and support. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.