Nabla vs Suki (2026)
Two different answers to the same enterprise question: what should the microphone do. Nabla says document everywhere: named integrations across Epic, athenahealth, Oracle Health, NextGen, and Greenway, roughly 31 languages, a base weighted toward hospital systems and emergency departments, and efficiency figures attributed to a published NEJM study. Suki says operate the chart: a voice first assistant whose commands order medications, navigate, query the patient record, and stage orders for review, across its own five deep integrations reaching MEDITECH and Elation, with Suki Platform letting other vendors embed the capability. Both hold A grades on EHR depth covering different estates, so map the five systems each names against yours before anything else. If your failure mode is multilingual documentation across a mixed estate, start with Nabla, and confirm its training default and BAA tier. If your failure mode is the clicks around the visit, start with Suki, and ask for its unpublished command interpretation accuracy. Neither currently publishes pricing.
- Language and setting breadth: roughly 31 languages and templates across more than 35 specialties, spanning in person and telehealth encounters, on a base of more than 85,000 clinicians weighted toward hospital systems and emergency departments.
- 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 Suki's clinical evidence is unassessed on this index and rests on a reported 125,000 consults a week.
- The ambulatory long tail: named integrations include NextGen and Greenway alongside Epic, athenahealth, and Oracle Health, a different estate from the one Suki covers.
- You want to operate the EHR by voice, not just document: commands order medications, navigate charts, query the patient record against the specific chart, stage orders for review, and pull schedules, where Nabla is a passive scribe.
- A different five systems: deep bidirectional integrations with Epic, Oracle Health, athenahealth, MEDITECH, and Elation, plus a partnership program and Suki Platform letting other healthcare software vendors embed the capability.
- The graded stewardship split favors it, B against Nabla's C: Suki commits to a stated 30 day deletion window for audio and transcripts, while Nabla's session data trains its models by default, though Suki's own training posture is not addressed in retrieved materials.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Nabla and Suki 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
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 Suki, Nabla grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. 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 Suki its top capability grade on AI Centrality and EHR and Interoperability Depth. Set against Nabla, Suki grades higher on HIPAA and BAA Posture. 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 Nabla or Suki?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Nabla grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, and Suki grades higher on HIPAA and BAA Posture. Nabla 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 Nabla and Suki differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Nabla and Suki is on Clinical and Operational Evidence, where Nabla grades A and Suki 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 Suki grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Nabla and Suki 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 figures for both vendors are vendor published, including Suki's roughly 125,000 consults a week and Nabla's 85,000 plus clinicians. Both hold A grades on EHR depth across different named systems, so map each vendor's five against your estate before weighing anything else.
Suki's oversight model stages orders for clinician review rather than submitting them, but no command interpretation accuracy is published and a misinterpreted medication order is a higher consequence failure than a flawed note; press on this in evaluation.
The training question runs in opposite directions: Nabla discloses an unfavorable default, session data used for model training, while Suki does not address the question in retrieved materials; this index grades the practice on one side and the silence on the other. Nabla's free tier reportedly lacks a Business Associate Agreement, and its evidence grade is held at B because the cited NEJM study's design and cohort were not captured.
Neither vendor currently publishes pricing; third party estimates place Suki near $299 to $399 per provider per month with setup fees, and Nabla's previously published tiers are withdrawn. All estimates are unconfirmed.