Great Culture, Stability, and Growth - Regional Lead Verisk Employee Review

5.0
Sep 18, 2024
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Verisk has a team of humble and hardworking people. For an organization with over 8k employees, it is still easy to build relationships with key leaders. Verisk's decision to re-focus on the insurance industry has led to significant growth, which directly benefits employees and customers.

Cons

Verisk remains consistent and does not over-hire as many tech companies do. This has allowed Verisk to avoid massive layoffs. With leaner teams, there can be a heavy workload at times and career growth takes patience - but the stability and culture easily make this the best company I have ever worked for.

avatar
Verisk Response
1y
Greetings! We were so thrilled to read your review. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about your time at Verisk. We appreciate your feedback and are delighted to hear about your positive experience working with us. Your acknowledgment of our culture is truly encouraging. As a certified Great Place to Work, we are proud to be a leading employer in cultivating a welcoming environment for our employees. As a member of the Verisk community, you can help us connect with others who are looking for a certified Great Place to Work. Visit our intranet to learn more about our Employee Referral Program.

Explore other reviews about Verisk

5.0
Jul 1, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

The people are awesome, the culture is strong, and they are terrific career opportunities.

Cons

Getting a little too “doing more with less” happy at the moment

2.0
Jun 30, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

The people. I worked with genuinely talented, hardworking colleagues who showed up for each other and for the work, even when leadership made that hard.

Cons

Leadership at the senior level was chaotic and unclear, and it trickled down into everything. Projects routinely landed with little to no notice, leaving teams scrambling instead of planning. Budgets were micromanaged from the top while strategic direction was not — a strange mix of tight control over spending and almost no clarity on priorities. Communication from senior leadership rarely made it down to the people actually doing the work, so teams were often the last to know about decisions that directly affected them. There was also a clear undercurrent of fear among some senior leaders that discouraged any real innovation or experimentation — better to play it safe than propose something new. If you're someone who thrives on clarity, planning, and a culture that rewards new ideas, this is not that environment.

1
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All