Heidi Health vs Nabla
The two scribes that grew up outside the US enterprise sales motion, converging on it from different directions. Heidi is breadth and transparency: a reported 110 languages across 190 countries and more than 200 specialties, published pricing from a free tier, and a platform expanding into cited decision support through Heidi Evidence. Nabla is depth and estate: named integrations across Epic, athenahealth, Oracle Health, NextGen, and Greenway, a base weighted toward hospital systems and emergency departments, and efficiency figures attributed to a published NEJM study, an evidence grade Heidi does not match. Both carry a BAA gate, and that shared weakness is worth leading with: Heidi's organization wide agreement is reported from the Practice tier upward, Nabla's free tier reportedly lacks one, so US buyers should evaluate both on the tier they would actually sign. If your failure mode is languages, geographies, or a price you can see, start with Heidi. If your failure mode is native EHR integration and a hospital or emergency base, start with Nabla, and confirm its training default contractually.
- Language and geography decide it: a reported 110 languages across 190 countries and more than 200 specialties, against Nabla's roughly 31 languages and 35 plus specialty templates.
- You need a price without a sales call: a free tier with unlimited transcription and a published Clinician tier at $150 per user per month billed annually, where Nabla withdrew its previously published tiers toward contract sales during 2026.
- The data handling and the roadmap: no audio stored after transcription as a stated engineering commitment with ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II stated, against Nabla's training by default, plus Heidi Evidence surfacing cited decision support from BMJ, NICE, and HealthPathways and Heidi Comms coordinating patient calls.
- EHR integration splits A to C in its favor: named bidirectional integrations across Epic, athenahealth, Oracle Health, NextGen, and Greenway, where Heidi's push to chart is reported as gated to the Practice tier upward.
- Evidence splits B to C in its favor: efficiency figures attributed to a published NEJM study, where Heidi's record carries candid third party limits and no accuracy study against ground truth was retrieved.
- Enterprise weight: more than 85,000 clinicians at over 150 organizations, weighted toward hospital systems and emergency departments, across in person and telehealth encounters.
Side-by-Side
| Axis | H Heidi Health |
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 and coverage figures for both vendors are vendor published, including Heidi's 2.5 million weekly consults and Nabla's 85,000 plus clinicians. Both vendors carry a BAA gate and both grade C on this index's HIPAA axis: Heidi's organization wide Business Associate Agreement is reported as available only from the Practice tier upward, and Nabla's free tier reportedly lacks one; US buyers should evaluate both on the tier they would actually contract. Nabla's session data is additionally reported as used for model training by default; confirm whether that can be disabled contractually. 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; Heidi's clinical evidence grades C, with third party review candid that multi problem visits document less reliably than single problem encounters. Heidi's pricing was restructured in February 2026 and sources conflict on some tier amounts; Nabla's previously published tiers are withdrawn and aggregator listings conflict on rates.