Renew Risk

Name: Renew Risk
Brand: Renew Risk

AI Native

Leading risk management and analytics provider for the renewable energy market.

Est 2021

LinkedIn 4K|Web traffic 1K|FTEs 22|HQ London, England, GB

MarketsEnergy & Infrastructure Asset Analytics

Published Sep 20, 2026

01Common complaints

Consider alternatives or delay procurement when: 1. Security and compliance evidence (SOC 2 Type II / ISO 27001) must be provided upfront and the vendor cannot supply equivalent documentation under NDA. 2. The organisation prefers to consolidate all catastrophe modelling with a single incumbent vendor managing multiple lines/perils to reduce vendor management overhead. 3. The buying committee relies heavily on third-party review platforms for vendor validation and the vendor lacks a public footprint on those platforms. 4. Budget constraints and a narrow use case make quote-based enterprise pricing difficult to justify for a small portfolio. 5. Transparent, regulator-facing methodology documentation and model governance artifacts are required prior to procurement and are not available or sufficient for internal model risk management processes.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Procurement requires published SOC 2/ISO evidence prior to engagement.
The buyer requires a single consolidated cat vendor for multiple non-renewable lines and prefers not to add a specialist supplier.
Renewables exposure is small and can be managed through existing vendor relationships or engineering judgment.

Limitations acknowledged or implied by public information

No publicly documented security attestations located, which may slow enterprise procurement processes.
Pricing opacity makes early-stage budgeting and procurement planning difficult.
Limited publicly available third-party reviews or case studies with quantified outcomes complicate ROI validation for buyers without internal expertise.

Roadmap signals

Public job postings and vendor materials suggest ongoing development into additional region-perils and asset classes (for example, expanded solar modelling capabilities).

Scale limitations

No public benchmarks for runtime performance, maximum portfolio size, or throughput were located. Procurement teams should request performance benchmarks for expected portfolio sizes.

API / integration constraints

Public documentation does not detail APIs and integration limits. Procurement teams should validate:

Data format compatibility and OED support.
Batch APIs and programmatic integration capabilities.
Integration approach with internal catastrophe modelling platforms and GIS systems.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by evidence

Specialist modelling focus on offshore wind and renewables, with models and datasets targeted to these asset classes.
Availability through industry modelling platforms and formats that facilitate enterprise consumption and integration.
An industry exposure database that covers global offshore wind assets (existing and planned), which supports portfolio-level analysis.

Where competitors retain advantage

Incumbent cat model vendors often provide more mature compliance and procurement packaging and broader peril coverage.

03Field reports

Review-platform presence and limitations

Renew Risk has limited substantive public reviews on major B2B review platforms in the sources reviewed. This pattern is common for niche insurtech or catastrophe modelling vendors that sell to a small number of sophisticated enterprise customers. Because independent review-platform content is scarce, available signals are primarily vendor-published statements and partner announcements; these should be treated as vendor-controlled content unless independent corroboration is available.

Partner statements (vendor-published)

- A partner executive at a specialist insurer stated in vendor-published materials that the partnership will enable use of Renew Risk models for pricing offshore wind risks, reflecting a commercial relationship between the organisations. - A representative from a platform partner has commented in vendor materials that integration will provide access to Renew Risk models via the partner platform. These statements indicate commercial relationships and distribution arrangements; they do not provide quantified performance outcomes or independent user satisfaction data.

Criticisms / negative feedback signals

No direct user complaints about Renew Risk were found on mainstream review platforms in accessible sources. Structural limitations for public feedback in this market include the proprietary nature of modelling work and limited public disclosure by enterprise customers.

Why customers choose Renew Risk (evidence-based summary)

Based on vendor and partner materials, decision drivers include:

Models tailored to offshore wind hazard and vulnerability characteristics rather than adapted onshore assumptions.
Availability via established catastrophe modelling ecosystems and industry formats that can reduce integration effort.
Coverage of specific region-peril combinations relevant to offshore wind deployment.

Potential reasons for non-adoption or churn (inferred)

Lack of publicly available compliance attestations for enterprise procurement.
Quote-based pricing and potential minimum engagement sizes.
Preference for vendor consolidation with incumbent catastrophe vendors that cover multiple lines/perils.
Requirement for extensive model governance documentation and validation evidence before enterprise adoption.

Vendor case studies and requested evidence

The vendor publishes a Projects/Case Studies section; accessible excerpts did not provide detailed, quantified outcome metrics in public snippets. Procurement teams should request case studies that include quantified outcome measures such as loss-ratio changes, pricing impacts, capital efficiency metrics, or other before/after indicators.

Partnership case: specialist insurer + platform integration (operational impact)

A partner announcement describes a specialist insurer using the vendor’s offshore wind catastrophe models and integration with a third-party risk modelling platform. This indicates commercial distribution and potential operational alignment. Critical evaluation: - The announcement includes assertions about improved pricing and risk analysis but does not provide empirical outcome metrics (for example, explicit rate changes, loss-ratio improvements, or capital effects). - The partnership is a credible commercial signpost, but independent verification of performance impacts is required for procurement decisions.

Accelerator program participation (market signal)

Inclusion in an industry accelerator program and completion of model development milestones are credible market signals of product development progress. Such program participation indicates engagement with industry stakeholders but is not a substitute for independent performance validation.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Best fit: mid-market to enterprise organisations with dedicated catastrophe modelling, exposure management, or renewables underwriting/finance teams. Examples include:

Insurers and reinsurers with meaningful renewable energy portfolios.
Brokers specialising in renewable energy placements.
Banks and infrastructure lenders financing large renewable projects.

Industries / verticals

Renewable energy insurance and reinsurance.
Offshore wind developers and owner-operators.
Infrastructure finance and asset management.

Roles and personas

Heads of renewable energy underwriting.
Exposure management and catastrophe modelling leads.
Portfolio risk managers.
Project finance and credit risk teams.
Risk engineers and loss control specialists.

Pain points addressed

Quantifying catastrophe risk for offshore wind and renewables when generic property models are insufficient.
Supporting underwriting, pricing, and capacity decisions in concentrated-risk portfolios.
Addressing exposure data gaps for offshore wind with a dedicated industry exposure dataset.
Supporting event-response workflows for operational incidents.

Qualification criteria (good fit)

The buyer underwrites or finances offshore wind in major offshore wind markets globally.
The organisation needs models delivered in industry formats or via third-party platforms.
The organisation has internal capability to validate and operationalise model output.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Renew Risk is a renewable-energy-focused risk analytics provider that supplies catastrophe risk models (with a focus on offshore wind), risk engineering reports, and an industry exposure database intended to support underwriting, pricing, portfolio/exposure management, event response, and financing decisions for renewable infrastructure projects. The vendor describes its modelling approach as science-based and grounded in physics, and argues that approaches derived from onshore property models may be insufficient for certain renewable assets (offshore wind, solar, interconnectors). Key product lines described by Renew Risk: - Catastrophe models for renewable assets across regions including the US, Japan, Taiwan, UK & Europe (with emphasis on offshore wind and planned expansion into solar). - Risk engineering reports: specialist, bespoke assessments for onshore/offshore wind, solar farms, and interconnectors. - Industry Exposure Database (IED): data covering global offshore wind farms (existing and planned over a multi-year horizon) referenced as supporting high-resolution modelling.

Target market and positioning

Renew Risk targets institutional buyers in the (re)insurance and project finance ecosystems: - (Re)insurers, underwriters, and exposure managers seeking region-peril models tailored to renewable assets. - Brokers and intermediaries supporting renewable energy insurance placements. - Developers, owner-operators, and asset managers needing improved risk visibility and resilience planning. - Financiers and lenders for credit analysis, stress testing, and portfolio risk. The vendor describes itself as focused on renewable energy infrastructure and has stated that commercially available catastrophe models specifically tailored to renewable energy assets were limited prior to its product development. This claim is dependent on definitions such as model scope, vendor format, and whether legacy cat vendors offer offshore wind modules; procurement teams should treat it as a vendor positioning statement and validate against incumbent capabilities.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Renew Risk including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →

Published Sep 20, 2026

01Common complaints

Consider alternatives or delay procurement when:

Security and compliance evidence (SOC 2 Type II / ISO 27001) must be provided upfront and the vendor cannot supply equivalent documentation under NDA.
The organisation prefers to consolidate all catastrophe modelling with a single incumbent vendor managing multiple lines/perils to reduce vendor management overhead.
The buying committee relies heavily on third-party review platforms for vendor validation and the vendor lacks a public footprint on those platforms.
Budget constraints and a narrow use case make quote-based enterprise pricing difficult to justify for a small portfolio.
Transparent, regulator-facing methodology documentation and model governance artifacts are required prior to procurement and are not available or sufficient for internal model risk management processes.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Procurement requires published SOC 2/ISO evidence prior to engagement.
The buyer requires a single consolidated cat vendor for multiple non-renewable lines and prefers not to add a specialist supplier.
Renewables exposure is small and can be managed through existing vendor relationships or engineering judgment.

Limitations acknowledged or implied by public information

No publicly documented security attestations located, which may slow enterprise procurement processes.
Pricing opacity makes early-stage budgeting and procurement planning difficult.
Limited publicly available third-party reviews or case studies with quantified outcomes complicate ROI validation for buyers without internal expertise.

Roadmap signals

Public job postings and vendor materials suggest ongoing development into additional region-perils and asset classes (for example, expanded solar modelling capabilities).

Scale limitations

No public benchmarks for runtime performance, maximum portfolio size, or throughput were located. Procurement teams should request performance benchmarks for expected portfolio sizes.

API / integration constraints

Public documentation does not detail APIs and integration limits. Procurement teams should validate:

Data format compatibility and OED support.
Batch APIs and programmatic integration capabilities.
Integration approach with internal catastrophe modelling platforms and GIS systems.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by evidence

Specialist modelling focus on offshore wind and renewables, with models and datasets targeted to these asset classes.
Availability through industry modelling platforms and formats that facilitate enterprise consumption and integration.
An industry exposure database that covers global offshore wind assets (existing and planned), which supports portfolio-level analysis.

Where competitors retain advantage

Incumbent cat model vendors often provide more mature compliance and procurement packaging and broader peril coverage.

03Field reports

Review-platform presence and limitations

Because independent review-platform content is scarce, available signals are primarily vendor-published statements and partner announcements; these should be treated as vendor-controlled content unless independent corroboration is available.

Partner statements (vendor-published)

A partner executive at a specialist insurer stated in vendor-published materials that the partnership will enable use of Renew Risk models for pricing offshore wind risks, reflecting a commercial relationship between the organisations.
A representative from a platform partner has commented in vendor materials that integration will provide access to Renew Risk models via the partner platform.

These statements indicate commercial relationships and distribution arrangements; they do not provide quantified performance outcomes or independent user satisfaction data.

Criticisms / negative feedback signals

Why customers choose Renew Risk (evidence-based summary)

Based on vendor and partner materials, decision drivers include:

Models tailored to offshore wind hazard and vulnerability characteristics rather than adapted onshore assumptions.
Availability via established catastrophe modelling ecosystems and industry formats that can reduce integration effort.
Coverage of specific region-peril combinations relevant to offshore wind deployment.

Potential reasons for non-adoption or churn (inferred)

Lack of publicly available compliance attestations for enterprise procurement.
Quote-based pricing and potential minimum engagement sizes.
Preference for vendor consolidation with incumbent catastrophe vendors that cover multiple lines/perils.
Requirement for extensive model governance documentation and validation evidence before enterprise adoption.

Vendor case studies and requested evidence

Partnership case: specialist insurer + platform integration (operational impact)

Critical evaluation:

The announcement includes assertions about improved pricing and risk analysis but does not provide empirical outcome metrics (for example, explicit rate changes, loss-ratio improvements, or capital effects).
The partnership is a credible commercial signpost, but independent verification of performance impacts is required for procurement decisions.

Accelerator program participation (market signal)

04Best fit

Company sizes

Best fit: mid-market to enterprise organisations with dedicated catastrophe modelling, exposure management, or renewables underwriting/finance teams. Examples include:

Insurers and reinsurers with meaningful renewable energy portfolios.
Brokers specialising in renewable energy placements.
Banks and infrastructure lenders financing large renewable projects.

Industries / verticals

Renewable energy insurance and reinsurance.
Offshore wind developers and owner-operators.
Infrastructure finance and asset management.

Roles and personas

Heads of renewable energy underwriting.
Exposure management and catastrophe modelling leads.
Portfolio risk managers.
Project finance and credit risk teams.
Risk engineers and loss control specialists.

Pain points addressed

Quantifying catastrophe risk for offshore wind and renewables when generic property models are insufficient.
Supporting underwriting, pricing, and capacity decisions in concentrated-risk portfolios.
Addressing exposure data gaps for offshore wind with a dedicated industry exposure dataset.
Supporting event-response workflows for operational incidents.

Qualification criteria (good fit)

The buyer underwrites or finances offshore wind in major offshore wind markets globally.
The organisation needs models delivered in industry formats or via third-party platforms.
The organisation has internal capability to validate and operationalise model output.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Key product lines described by Renew Risk:

Catastrophe models for renewable assets across regions including the US, Japan, Taiwan, UK & Europe (with emphasis on offshore wind and planned expansion into solar).
Risk engineering reports: specialist, bespoke assessments for onshore/offshore wind, solar farms, and interconnectors.
Industry Exposure Database (IED): data covering global offshore wind farms (existing and planned over a multi-year horizon) referenced as supporting high-resolution modelling.

Target market and positioning

Renew Risk targets institutional buyers in the (re)insurance and project finance ecosystems:

(Re)insurers, underwriters, and exposure managers seeking region-peril models tailored to renewable assets.
Brokers and intermediaries supporting renewable energy insurance placements.
Developers, owner-operators, and asset managers needing improved risk visibility and resilience planning.
Financiers and lenders for credit analysis, stress testing, and portfolio risk.

The vendor describes itself as focused on renewable energy infrastructure and has stated that commercially available catastrophe models specifically tailored to renewable energy assets were limited prior to its product development. This claim is dependent on definitions such as model scope, vendor format, and whether legacy cat vendors offer offshore wind modules; procurement teams should treat it as a vendor positioning statement and validate against incumbent capabilities.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Renew Risk including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →