Freed vs Nabla
These two mark the sharpest compliance inversion in the lane. Freed, the self serve scribe, ships the clean defaults: a Business Associate Agreement on every tier including the $39 entry plan, automatic deletion of recordings, an opt out from model training, and fully published pricing. Nabla, the estate scribe, carries the two caveats this index flags most often: the free tier reportedly lacks a BAA, and session data trains its models by default. What Nabla buys with that friction is reach Freed cannot offer: named integrations across Epic, athenahealth, Oracle Health, NextGen, and Greenway against Freed's browser extension push, roughly 31 languages, and a base weighted toward hospital systems and emergency departments with NEJM attributed efficiency figures. If your failure mode is PHI terms you have to negotiate, or procurement itself, start with Freed. If your failure mode is native integration across a mixed hospital estate, start with Nabla, and put the training default and BAA tier in the contract.
- The compliance defaults are the inversion: a HIPAA Business Associate Agreement on every tier including the $39 entry plan, SOC 2 Type II, automatic deletion of recordings, and an opt out from model training, against Nabla's free tier BAA gap and training by default.
- You can see the whole cost before talking to anyone: $39 Starter, $79 Core unlimited, $119 Premier with EHR Push and coding, and a seven day trial with no credit card, where Nabla withdrew its previously published tiers during 2026.
- Zero deployment is the feature: sign up and generate notes the same day with no sales call or IT project; community health center Camarena Health deployed 55 clinicians across 24 sites without formal implementation.
- Native integration decides it: named bidirectional integrations across Epic, athenahealth, Oracle Health, NextGen, and Greenway, an A on this index's EHR axis, against Freed's Chrome extension push with no native API write back.
- Setting and language breadth: roughly 31 languages and templates across more than 35 specialties on a base weighted toward hospital systems and emergency departments, where Freed's fit is strongest in primary care with a documented specialty ceiling.
- Peer reviewed attribution: roughly 55 percent of users saving at least an hour a day and a 27 percent reduction in burnout, figures attributed to a published NEJM study, where Freed's clinical evidence is unassessed on this index.
Side-by-Side
| Axis | F Freed |
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 |
Volume figures for both vendors are vendor published, including Freed's 32 million transcribed visits and Nabla's 85,000 plus clinicians. Freed's tradeoffs are stated plainly by vendor and third party review alike: EHR Push works through a Chrome extension into browser based EHRs with no native API write back, and specialty depth outside primary care is a known weakness. Nabla's two caveats carry more weight than any price: the free tier reportedly lacks a Business Associate Agreement, and session data is used for model training by default; confirm both, and whether training can be disabled contractually, before deployment. Nabla's evidence grade is held at B because the design and cohort of the NEJM study it cites were not captured in retrieved materials. Freed's pricing is fully published; Nabla previously published tiers, including a Pro plan reported near $119 per month, and has moved to contract sales with aggregator listings now conflicting on rates.