Blueprint vs Upheal (2026)
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.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Blueprint and Upheal are each graded against the same capability taxonomy, from each vendor's own public materials and the regulatory record, under the AI Health Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement, and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Plain facts
| Fact | Blueprint | Upheal |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Behavioral Health AI | Behavioral Health AI |
| Founded | 2018 | Not recorded |
| Headquarters | Chicago, Illinois, United States | New York, New York, United States |
| Website | blueprint.ai | upheal.io |
Side by Side
Each record in one paragraph
Written to be quoted whole. Each paragraph states what the AI Health Index verified about the vendor, with the caveats attached. Generated from this pair’s live capability grades, so it moves when a grade moves.
The AI Health Index awards Blueprint its top capability grade on AI Centrality, EHR and Interoperability Depth and Commercial Transparency. Set against Upheal, Blueprint does not grade higher on any scored axis, though the two are level on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model and Technology Transparency. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Liability and Recourse. Grades reflect evidence the AI Health Index could verify at the last review, so a low grade records disclosure the vendor has not published rather than a capability it has been shown to lack.
Source: AI Health Index, July 2026
The AI Health Index awards Upheal its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Set against Blueprint, Upheal grades higher on several axes, including AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Liability and Recourse. Grades reflect evidence the AI Health Index could verify at the last review, so a low grade records disclosure the vendor has not published rather than a capability it has been shown to lack.
Source: AI Health Index, July 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Blueprint or Upheal?
The AI Health Index grades Upheal higher than Blueprint on every axis that separates them, several axes, including AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Blueprint does not grade higher on any scored axis.
Where do Blueprint and Upheal differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Blueprint and Upheal is on Security Certifications and Trust Center, where Blueprint grades C and Upheal grades A. That axis sits in the Regulatory and Compliance group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is where regulatory exposure sits and who carries it.
Where do Blueprint and Upheal grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Blueprint and Upheal the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model and Technology Transparency. Neither holds an advantage the index can evidence on those axes, so they should not carry weight in a selection between these two.
What have Blueprint and Upheal not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Blueprint and Upheal published thin or absent detail on Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Liability and Recourse. The AI Health Index treats an absent disclosure as a gap in the public record rather than a failure of the product, so these are the axes to get in writing during diligence instead of inferring from the grade.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Ambient Scribes page.
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.