Heidi Health vs Nabla (2026)
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.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Heidi Health 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 | Heidi Health | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Ambient Scribes | Ambient Scribes |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2018 |
| Headquarters | Melbourne, Australia | Paris, France |
| Website | heidihealth.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 Heidi Health its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Set against Nabla, Heidi Health grades higher on several axes, including AI Governance and Bias Disclosure, AI Liability and Recourse and Deployment Model and Data Residency. 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 Heidi Health, Nabla grades higher on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, Clinical and Operational Evidence and EHR and Interoperability Depth. 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 Heidi Health or Nabla?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Heidi Health grades higher on several axes, including AI Governance and Bias Disclosure, AI Liability and Recourse and Deployment Model and Data Residency, and Nabla grades higher on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, Clinical and Operational Evidence and EHR and Interoperability Depth. Heidi Health 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 Heidi Health and Nabla differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Heidi Health and Nabla is on Commercial Transparency, where Heidi Health grades A and Nabla grades C. That axis sits in the Commercial group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is contracting, scope and what the price actually covers.
Where do Heidi Health and Nabla grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Heidi Health 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.
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.
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.