The manuscript describes how a large group of scientists at ETH is working to develop an earthquake risk framework for Switzerland that collects and harmonizes all the state-of-the-art models and knowledge to provide seismic risk information at various time scales and to different stakeholders. First a detailed description of the Swiss seismic network together with the way in which seismic data are recorded and processed is provided. Then, the manuscript describes all the products that are already available or will be soon available to the public and stakeholders. The communication strategies are also briefly described.

However, each of the cited methodologies, tools, or products are described in more details in dedicated papers (already published or submitted for publication), none of the products are explored in depth here, and there are no results described in the manuscript that were not available before. Thus, despite acknowledging the importance of each of the developed product, this reviewer believes that, in accordance with review criteria of NHESS, the innovative contribution of the manuscript is not sufficient, and the publication of the manuscript should be rejected.

The paper presents an interdisciplinary dynamic seismic risk framework developed for Switzerland with the collaboration of various scientists from ETH, Zurich. The paper is interesting, well-written and well-structured and within the scope of NHESS.

To the referee’s opinion, the scientific significance and originality of the paper lie in the fact that all the different individual services and components, which are not described in great detail here, are presented in the form of a dynamic framework, where the different components collaborate with each other and results are dynamically updated with the integration of additional data. The presented framework could therefore act as a reference for similar efforts in other countries. This is why this specific aspect should be highlighted more throughout the paper, e.g. through a detailed description of the flowchart given in Figure 1, with additional examples for the interactions among the different components as the ones given in lines 63-71, or with appropriate presentation of representative results. For example, to my understanding, Figure 8 presents the RIA output for ShakeMap of Figure 7, but this is not mentioned in the text, just implied from the figure captions.

Finally, the paper would greatly benefit from a more detailed (yet not too exhaustive) description of the national risk model in Section 1.1, e.g. the exposure model, the vulnerability functions or the composite index used for the representation of losses (Figure 3b).

This manuscript presents the ongoing development of earthquake risk services and products for Switzerland performed at ETH, Zurich. It overviews the broad spectrum of earthquake related research activities conducted at ETH during last 20yrs. The presented earthquake risk framework takes great advantage of available databased information for Switzerland, long-term generous funding, and capacity of ETH to host such interdisciplinary cutting-edge research. Manuscript is well written, comprehensible, and interesting, and suitable for NHESS. Although the individual components of the framework have been published in specific papers, the original contribution of this manuscript lies in the presentation of multiple couplings between the different components and their harmonic integration into a single framework which is expected to evolve in time. The manuscript would be a good reference for the development of similar products in countries without such a solid framework. It seems that the presented framework was established in a quite organic way, which is fine, but difficult to follow. Therefore, a short discussion on the development of the framework including a lessons learned analysis would be very helpful. The key services and products should be explicitly labelled. Assigning priorities to the different components would be also very useful.

Specific comments:

• A number of tools and software modules developed and used within the framework have been mentioned in the text of the manuscript. A table which lists these tools and including their availability would be helpful.
• The hyperlinks to the available products should be included in Table 1.
• The section “2.2 Seismic Data Processing” includes subsection: “Other advanced methods which are currently being explored and evaluated at the SED”, where the noise interferometry and fiber-optic deformation sensing are briefly described. I find these paragraphs not directly related to the topic of the manuscript and should be removed. Or the direct and particular link to the Earthquake Risk Framework should be described.
• There are no mentions of GNSS measurements, historical and paleoseismological studies in the manuscript. Of course, these are included in the hazard model, but these aspects should be briefly mentioned in this study (considering the number of other references).