Blueprint vs Upheal
Two AI native products that each bundle documentation with an EHR, separated by compliance clarity and pricing shape rather than core capability. Upheal is the more legible on both: a completed SOC 2 Type II, a published Business Associate Agreement rather than a bare compliance claim, and the most buyer favourable pricing in the category at $1 per session capped at $69 with everything included and no add on. Blueprint counters with the largest peer base at more than 70,000 clinicians and a genuinely dual path, run alongside your existing EHR or adopt its own, plus published self serve pricing. Neither matches Mentalyc on data stewardship, and Upheal captures video as well as audio. If you want a virtual first all in one with transparent per session pricing and a readable BAA, start with Upheal. If you want the largest peer base and the freedom to keep your existing EHR, start with Blueprint, and ask for its security attestation.
- The largest peer base in the category at more than 70,000 clinicians, with a dual track approach that runs alongside an existing EHR via browser extension and one click transfer or replaces it with Blueprint's own AI native EHR, graded A on interoperability.
- Published self serve pricing with a free EHR on ramp and no credit card trial, graded A on commercial transparency, and modality depth across individual, couples, family, and group therapy plus psychiatry.
- The AI Assistant is the paid layer and the explicit locus of value, graded A on AI centrality, for practices that want documentation intelligence without committing to a new system of record.
- A completed security attestation and a readable contract: SOC 2 Type II graded A, and a published Business Associate Agreement with Upheal positioning as a HIPAA Business Associate rather than merely claiming compliance, plus PHIPA, where Blueprint states HIPAA but publishes no BAA and has no located attestation.
- The most buyer favourable pricing structure in the category: $1 per session capped at $69 per month per provider with everything included, no per seat fees and no AI add on, so cost scales with actual caseload.
- An all in one AI native EHR with a built in HIPAA secure telehealth room, plus Golden Thread linkage maintaining documented continuity between diagnosis, plan goals, and progress notes, the exact thread auditors examine for medical necessity.
Side-by-Side
| Axis | B Blueprint |
U Upheal |
|---|---|---|
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| Model and Technology Transparency | ||
| Clinical and Operational Evidence | ||
| AI Safety and PHI Stewardship | ||
| HIPAA and BAA Posture | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
| FDA and Regulatory Status | ||
| AI Governance and Bias Disclosure | ||
| EHR and Interoperability Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Setting and Specialty Coverage |
Both are AI native products that bundle documentation with an EHR, both grade A on AI centrality, interoperability, and commercial transparency, so this is close on capability and separates on compliance posture and pricing model. Upheal publishes a completed SOC 2 Type II and an actual BAA, a materially clearer position than Blueprint's stated HIPAA compliance with no located attestation or agreement. On PHI stewardship both fall short of Mentalyc's explicit no training and no retention stance, and Upheal captures video as well as audio through its telehealth room, a larger data surface, so it grades B where Blueprint grades C. Pricing differs in kind: Upheal's usage model favours lighter caseloads while consistent cap hitters may find a flat rate cheaper. Both grade C on clinical evidence with no peer reviewed study located, and both draft and approve without publishing an edit burden figure.