Commure vs Nabla (2026)
A roll up against a pure play. Commure, the General Catalyst backed combination of Athelas, Augmedix, and Memora, sells ambient documentation as the front end of coding and claims automation, with three oversight tiers running from AI drafted notes through specialist review to synchronous human documentation, across a claimed 50 plus EHRs and a reported 250,000 plus providers. Nabla sells the scribe itself, deeply: named bidirectional integrations across Epic, athenahealth, Oracle Health, NextGen, and Greenway, roughly 31 languages, and headline figures it attributes to a published NEJM study. The privacy postures invert expectations: Nabla discloses an unfavorable default, session data training its models, while Commure's trust center does not state the training question at all. If your failure mode is documentation that must feed revenue cycle, or clinicians who need a human review tier, start with Commure. If your failure mode is a mixed estate of the major systems wanting one multilingual scribe contract, start with Nabla, and confirm its training default and BAA tier first.
- Documentation feeds revenue cycle: ambient output flows directly into autonomous coding, clinical documentation integrity, and claims automation, where Nabla sells the scribe alone.
- Oversight is a dial: Go delivers AI drafted notes, Assist adds specialist review, and Live provides synchronous human documentation, the only structure in this pairing that lets you buy human review for the clinicians or specialties that need it.
- Published trust artifacts: a public trust center with concrete controls, a standard Business Associate Agreement published among its legal documents, stated data export in FHIR, CSV, and JSON with deletion rights, and a January 2025 Vizient contract giving member health systems a negotiated path.
- Deep named integrations across the majors: Epic, athenahealth, Oracle Health, NextGen, and Greenway, an A on this index's EHR axis, meaning one scribe contract for a mixed estate of the systems that matter.
- Peer reviewed attribution: roughly 55 percent of users saving at least an hour a day and a 27 percent reduction in burnout, figures the vendor attributes to a published NEJM study, where Commure's clinical evidence is unassessed on this index.
- Language coverage for a diverse base: roughly 31 languages and templates across more than 35 specialties, spanning in person and telehealth encounters, on a base weighted toward hospital systems and emergency departments.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Commure and Nabla 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 | Commure | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Ambient Scribes | Ambient Scribes |
| Founded | 2017 | 2018 |
| Headquarters | Mountain View, California | Paris, France |
| Website | commure.com | nabla.com |
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 Commure its top capability grade on AI Centrality. Set against Nabla, Commure grades higher on HIPAA and BAA Posture. 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 Nabla its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. Set against Commure, Nabla grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. 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 Commure or Nabla?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Commure grades higher on HIPAA and BAA Posture, and Nabla grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. Nabla leads on the greater share of scored axes, but the split means the decision turns on which constraint is binding rather than on an overall winner.
Where do Commure and Nabla differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Commure and Nabla is on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, where Commure grades D and Nabla grades B. That axis sits in the AI Capability group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is how much of the work the model itself is trusted to do.
Where do Commure and Nabla grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Commure and Nabla 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 Commure and Nabla not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Commure and Nabla 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.
Provider counts for both vendors are vendor published, including Commure's 250,000 plus providers and Nabla's 85,000 plus clinicians. The EHR claims differ in kind: Commure's 50 plus EHR count is a breadth claim graded B, while Nabla's five named deep integrations grade A. The privacy postures deserve the same reading: Nabla discloses an unfavorable default, session data used for model training unless addressed, while Commure's purpose limitation language does not state the training question at all; this index treats disclosure of an unfavorable practice as better than silence, and grades the practice rather than the candour.
Nabla's free tier reportedly lacks a Business Associate Agreement; confirm both Nabla caveats contractually before deployment. Nabla's evidence grade is held at B because the study design and cohort size were not captured in retrieved materials. Neither vendor currently publishes pricing; Nabla previously published tiers and has withdrawn them toward contract sales, and no third party figure is recorded for Commure.