Nabla vs Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent (2026)
An Oracle Health site can run either of these, because Nabla is one of the few scribes with a named Oracle Health integration, which makes this a genuine choice rather than a default. The evidence gap is the story. Nabla holds the only positive randomized result in this category, a 9.5 percent reduction in time in note against control in a trial it did not run, and publishes its data lifecycle to the point of backup expiry. The Oracle agent publishes no accuracy figure, no model card and no bias statement, and its documentation footprint has grown into order drafting without a corresponding growth in disclosure. Choose the agent if native order writing inside the record is the capability you are buying and you accept an unpublished error profile. Choose Nabla if you want documented efficiency and a data position you can read before signing.
- The only ambient scribe with a positive randomized controlled trial result, reducing time in note by 9.5 percent against control across roughly 72,000 encounters and the only arm in that trial to meet its primary endpoint.
- The data lifecycle is published in full: audio not stored, no training on user data, a configurable 14 day retention sized around clinician review, and backups expiring seven days later so deletion reaches the backup layer rather than stopping at the application.
- It is portable. More than 15 record systems named including Epic, Oracle Health, athenahealth, NextGen, Greenway and Altera, so the documentation programme survives a record system change instead of ending with it.
- Order creation is the capability Nabla deliberately does not have. Prescriptions, laboratory tests, imaging studies and follow up appointments drafted from ambient listening and written back as structured orders, inside the record.
- Native depth beats integrated depth on latency, identity and workflow. There is no launch step, no separate login and no note transfer to manage.
- It is already inside the contract, the security review and the support relationship, which for a constrained Oracle Health IT function can be worth more than a better documented alternative.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Nabla and Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent 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 | Nabla | Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Ambient Scribes | Ambient Scribes |
| Founded | 2018 | 1977 |
| Headquarters | Paris, France | Austin, Texas, United States |
| Website | nabla.com | oracle.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 Nabla its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. Set against Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent, Nabla grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model Supply Chain Disclosure. 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, August 2026
The AI Health Index records no top capability grade for Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent on any axis it scores. Set against Nabla, Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent does not grade higher on any scored axis, though the two are level on Model and Technology Transparency, AI Governance and Bias Disclosure and Commercial Transparency. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Liability and Recourse. 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, August 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Nabla or Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent?
The AI Health Index grades Nabla higher than Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent on every axis that separates them, several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model Supply Chain Disclosure. Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent does not grade higher on any scored axis.
Where do Nabla and Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Nabla and Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent is on AI Centrality, where Nabla grades A and Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent grades C. That axis sits in the AI Capability group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is how much of the work the model itself is trusted to do.
Where do Nabla and Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Nabla and Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent the same on Model and Technology Transparency, AI Governance and Bias Disclosure and Commercial Transparency. Neither holds an advantage the index can evidence on those axes, so they should not carry weight in a selection between these two.
What have Nabla and Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Nabla and Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent published thin or absent detail on Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Liability and Recourse. The AI Health Index treats an absent disclosure as a gap in the public record rather than a failure of the product, so these are the axes to get in writing during diligence instead of inferring from the grade.
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.
The trial cited is Lukac et al, NEJM AI, 26 November 2025, NCT06792890, conducted in outpatient care at a single academic health system, so it does not establish note quality or inpatient performance. Nabla's published per month pricing was withdrawn during 2026 in favour of a sales motion, so evaluate on the tier you would contract.
An earlier version of this note said its free tier did not include a business associate agreement; that claim traced to competitor comparison pages and Nabla's own terms say the opposite, making agreement to the attached instrument a precondition of use for any customer subject to HIPAA. Corrected 13 September 2026. Oracle publishes no accuracy figure for note or order generation, no confidence threshold for drafted orders and no product scoped security or business associate documentation. Neither product is separately priced in a way that allows a like for like comparison.