DeepCura vs Sully.ai
Two agent suites that stopped being scribes some time ago, and both should be evaluated on what they do after the note. DeepCura runs eight named agents covering pre visit history, documentation, diagnosis mapping, allergy reconciliation, order generation and billing, with per field write back and the most complete published pricing ladder in this category. Sully sells role based agents for reception, scribing, coding, intake, triage and interpretation across the major record systems, publishes genuine technical work, and prices a bundle at a modest per provider rate. The uncomfortable common ground is autonomy: both draft orders and codes, both act on the record, and neither publishes a confidence threshold, an escalation path or an accuracy figure for any of it. Pilot them on how often a clinician edits what the agents produced, not on how many agents there are.
- The full per seat volume ladder is published, which is the most complete commercial disclosure located anywhere in this category, so a practice can price the whole platform before speaking to anyone.
- The architecture is eight named agents with defined scopes and per field write back, which is a clearer account of what each part does than a single assistant claim.
- A business associate agreement is offered to all covered entities rather than gated behind a tier, and the deployment question is answered by name rather than left open.
- The role based framing covers the whole encounter, reception through coding and triage, integrated with the major record systems, so one vendor spans the front desk and the exam room.
- It publishes real technical work rather than adjectives, including material that is unflattering to its own category, which is a rare posture here.
- Tiered pricing is reported at a modest per provider rate covering several agents, which is competitive for the breadth on offer.
Side by Side
| Axis | D DeepCura |
S Sully.ai |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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 platforms take autonomous action well beyond writing a note, drafting orders, codes and patient facing responses, and neither publishes a confidence threshold, an escalation behaviour or an accuracy figure for any of it. That is the central gap in this part of the category: the surface expanded faster than the disclosure. Read one phrase carefully on DeepCura, which describes itself in language implying an attestation it has not evidenced; ask for the report and its type.
Neither publishes a fairness statement, subgroup analysis or accent and dialect performance, and neither publishes a governance framework. Ask both what proportion of generated orders and codes are edited before they are signed.