Origami is a broad, configurable GRC platform — insurance, claims, ERM, BCM all on one backbone. BCMStack is BCM-first and ships pre-configured. The right choice depends on whether BCM is your primary need or one of many.
Origami’s defining strength is its configurability — partners shape the data model per customer. BCMStack’s defining strength is the opposite: ISO 22301 fields are baked in.
Schema-per-tenant + ISO 22301 § 8.4.4 fields baked into the schema. Every customer’s plan editor looks identical: same fields, same validation, same audit trail. No implementation-partner needed.
Single shared backbone, configurable per customer via implementation partner. Highly flexible: claims, ERM, audit, BCM can all live here. Trade-off: every customer’s BCM data model differs slightly, making cross-customer best-practice harder to share.
Origami's risk depth is industry-leading; BCMStack focuses on BCM-context risk
BCMStack BIA wizard + impact-over-time depth deeper than Origami's configured form
§8.4.4 native, §8.5 activation log, phased recovery — out of the box
Auto-coded action items + reopen support beyond Origami's incident module
ISO 22398 + MSEL injects + AAR + SAMA coverage rollup are exclusive
Origami's claims module is industry-leading; BCMStack doesn't compete here
Origami has full audit lifecycle; BCMStack uses evidence repository pattern
Broader ERM is Origami's strength; BCMStack stays BCM-focused
bcm_committee, sama_submissions, drp_plans tables ship day one
| BCM-specific | ||
|---|---|---|
| Feature | BCMStack | Origami |
| ISO 22301 §8.4.4 native fields | Yes | Configured |
| §8.4.5 phased recovery | Yes | Limited |
| §8.5 activation log first-class | Yes | Limited |
| ISO 22398 MSEL + AAR | Yes | Add-on |
| SAMA coverage themes | Yes | No |
| Out-of-the-box configuration | Yes | Partner-led |
| Broader GRC | ||
| Insurance / claims module | No | Yes |
| Full ERM (beyond BCM-context risk) | Limited | Yes |
| Audit lifecycle | Limited | Yes |
| Configurable per customer | No | Yes |
| Architecture & UX | ||
| Schema-per-tenant data isolation | Yes | Row-level |
| Modern web stack | Yes | 2018 stack |
| Self-serve onboarding | Yes | Partner-led |
| 14-day implementation | Yes | 3-6 months |
| Transparent pricing | Yes | No |
| Region | ||
| SAMA-native data model | Yes | No |
| Arabic UI + RTL | Roadmap | No |
Origami’s pricing varies widely by configuration and partner. Numbers below are inferred from analyst reports + customer reviews.
Annual contract value, mid-market typical
Included
Extra (priced separately)
Annual contract value, mid-market typical
Included
Extra (priced separately)
Origami implementations are partner-led. BCMStack ships pre-configured.
BCMStack — what fits in 14 days
Origami — typical phases
Yes, when BCM is the primary need rather than one of many GRC modules. Origami is a broad GRC platform — insurance claims, ERM, audit, BCM all live alongside each other on a configurable backbone. BCMStack is BCM-first with depth on §8.4.4 plans, ISO 22398 exercise programmes, and SAMA-specific data models that Origami implementations have to recreate via partner customisation.
Origami's strength is configurability — implementation partners can set up §8.4.4-shaped fields for a customer. But it's not native, meaning every customer's data model differs slightly from the next, and the §8.4.4 alignment depends on the partner's implementation. BCMStack ships discrete §8.4.4 columns out of the box; the alignment is built into the schema, not configured.
3-6 months partner-led is typical for a mid-market customer. Origami's model assumes a dedicated implementation partner walks the customer through methodology workshops, data-model configuration, and module-by-module rollout. BCMStack ships pre-configured for SAMA-regulated organisations and customers reach the first BIA-approved milestone in 14 days.
No — and that's by design. BCMStack stays BCM-focused and integrates with existing systems for the rest. If you need claims, broader ERM beyond BCM-context risk, or full audit lifecycle management, Origami is the more complete platform. If BCM is the primary need and you have other systems for the rest, BCMStack ships deeper BCM out of the box.
Origami typically lands $80-150K for a mid-market BCM-focused deployment, with implementation services often adding 50-100% of license cost on top. BCMStack targets $30-60K with self-serve onboarding included. The cost difference is largely in implementation services — Origami's partner-led model is mature but expensive; BCMStack's pre-configured model is cheaper but less customisable.
We’ll show you the platform working against a representative SAMA dataset — and what your current Origami BCM deployment would look like on BCMStack.
Book a 20-minute demoCompared with another peer? See BCMStack vs Castellan, BCMStack vs Fusion, BCMStack vs 6clicks, or BCMStack vs spreadsheets.