Blueprint

The AI Assistant is the product and the company is explicit that this is where the value concentrates: the 2026 repositioning made the EHR free and kept the AI layer paid, which is about as clear a statement of where the intelligence sits as a pricing model can make. No services layer underneath.

Draft-and-approve by design. Output is explicitly a draft the therapist must read, edit and approve before it enters the clinical record, and third party reviews are clear that this does not remove documentation responsibility. The 30 second note generation claim is about draft speed, not finality. Graded B rather than A because unlike Eleos, which publishes an approximate 80 percent suggestion acceptance rate, Blueprint publishes no edit-burden figure, so how much correction a therapist actually performs is unquantified. In a category where the whole value claim is time saved, the post-generation edit rate is the number that matters and it is absent.

Little technical disclosure. Located material describes natural language processing generating notes and treatment plans but names no base model, no training data provenance, and no accuracy methodology. Accuracy is evidenced through clinician testimonials rather than measurement. Compare Eleos in the same category, which publishes its micro-dialogue evaluation approach in peer reviewed venues.

The central gap on this record, and the sharpest contrast with Eleos Health. No peer reviewed study, controlled trial or published accuracy evaluation was located. Evidence consists of adoption scale, more than 70,000 clinicians, and extensive user testimonial. Adoption at that scale is a meaningful market signal and should not be dismissed, but it is not evidence of clinical benefit, and the index applies the same standard here it applied to Infervision: scale of use standing in for evidence of benefit earns a C. A measurement based care and AI progress tracking feature exists, which makes the absence of published outcome data more conspicuous rather than less, since the product is already computing symptom change.

The company states HIPAA compliance, but no published position was located on whether session recordings or generated notes are used to train models. This is a live and publicly raised concern rather than a hypothetical one: therapists in public commentary on the company's own marketing have asked directly whether their notes train models that could displace them, and consent, presence and data use are recurring themes in that discussion. For a product recording psychotherapy sessions at this scale, an explicit published training-data position is the minimum, and its absence is graded.

HIPAA compliance is stated prominently in product marketing, which is more than several peers in this batch offer. Graded B rather than A because no BAA terms, execution process or compliance documentation were located, and a stated compliance claim is not the same as a published agreement.

No third party attestation such as SOC 2 Type II or HITRUST, and no trust center, located at the time of review.

Not an FDA regulated product. Documentation drafting and workflow support fall outside Software as a Medical Device, and the product does not diagnose or direct treatment. Same treatment as Eleos Health and Mendel.

No governance framework, subgroup analysis or bias evaluation located. The exposure mirrors Eleos: speech-to-text and language models applied to psychotherapy sessions face documented performance variation across accent, dialect and atypical speech, and the population includes clients whose speech is affected by symptoms or medication. Additionally, a product that drafts treatment plans and suggests interventions is shaping clinical content, not just transcribing it, which raises the governance stakes above pure documentation.

Strong, and structurally similar to Eleos: a browser extension plus EHR integrations lets the Assistant run inside whatever system a practice already uses with no migration required, and a one-click note transfer to the EHR removes the copy-paste step that undermines most scribe workflows. The company also ships its own AI-native EHR for practices that do want to switch, so it serves both sides of that decision rather than forcing it. Offering a genuine no-migration path and a full replacement is unusual.

Broad and low friction: browser extension, web platform, and native iOS app allowing phone-based recording, supporting in-office and telehealth sessions, with no-credit-card trial access. Practical for solo practitioners, which is the target buyer. No data residency or hosting architecture disclosure located.

The strongest axis on this record and the inverse of Eleos. Pricing is published rather than gated: a free EHR tier as the on-ramp, with the AI Assistant sold as a usage-priced paid layer, and trial access without a credit card. A prospective buyer can determine what they will pay and start without contacting sales, which almost no behavioral health vendor in the index permits. Note the honest framing of the model itself, disclosed in third party review: the free EHR is genuinely free but functions as the on-ramp to the paid AI layer where the value concentrates. That is a legible commercial structure, not a one.

Covers individual, couples, family and group therapy plus psychiatry workflows, with note types tailored to each, including a couples SOAP structure that generates a note per client alongside a relational process note. That is genuine modality depth. Graded B rather than A because coverage is outpatient psychotherapy and psychiatry; it does not extend to substance use disorder treatment, case management, field based outreach, home health or hospice the way Eleos does, and it is oriented to solo and small practice rather than enterprise behavioral health organisations.