Doximity Scribe vs Nabla
The comparison that decides whether a free scribe is really free. Both have a no cost path for an individual clinician, but Doximity covers every user under a business associate agreement while Nabla's free tier is reported not to include one, which makes Nabla's free plan unusable in United States production regardless of how well it performs. Above that line the argument reverses completely. Nabla holds the only positive randomized efficiency result in this category and integrates with more than 15 record systems; Doximity has no located record system integration, no published accuracy figure and no described review gate, and its significance is distribution rather than technology. So the honest sequence is to start with Doximity if you want a note today and nothing else, and move to Nabla when the note has to reach the chart and the programme has to be defended with evidence.
- Free to every verified United States clinician and student with a business associate agreement covering all users, where the alternative's free tier is reported not to include one and its published pricing was withdrawn during 2026 in favour of a sales process.
- No audio stored or retained, recordings processed in real time and discarded once the note is generated, and the third party that processes the encounter is named.
- No procurement at all. A clinician can be documenting the same day without a contract, a quote or an IT conversation, which is the whole proposition.
- The only positive randomized controlled trial result in this category, a 9.5 percent reduction in time in note against control and the only arm to meet its primary endpoint, against a product with no study, benchmark or independent rating at all.
- It reaches the record system, with more than 15 platforms named including Epic, Oracle Health, athenahealth, NextGen, Greenway and Altera, where no record system integration was located for the alternative.
- A published data lifecycle that completes: audio not stored, no training on user data, a configurable 14 day retention sized around clinician review, and backups expiring seven days later.
Side by Side
| Axis | D Doximity Scribe |
N Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
Doximity publishes no accuracy figure, no described review gate or sign off step, and no confidence threshold, acceptance rate or edit burden figure, which is a conspicuous set of absences for a product distributed to a very large share of United States clinicians. Nabla's free tier is reported not to include a business associate agreement, so it is not a like for like alternative to a free product that does.
Nabla's randomized result comes from Lukac et al, NEJM AI, 26 November 2025, NCT06792890, conducted in outpatient care at a single academic health system. Neither vendor publishes an accent or dialect performance analysis.