Sunoh.ai

The artifact is wholly model generated: without ambient speech recognition and summarization there is no note, no dialogue flow and no pre filled order. Graded on the same test applied to Abridge. Worth separating from the Oracle Health case in this category, which is graded C: Sunoh is a separately branded product carrying its own per provider price rather than a feature folded into an EHR contract. What Sunoh inherits from its parent is distribution, not the intelligence, and distribution is assessed on the interoperability axis rather than here.

The human gate is real and clearly described: output stays a draft until the clinician edits and imports it into the Progress Note. The grade is C anyway because of reach. Sunoh claims to be the first ambient scribe to facilitate order entry and pre fills medications, laboratory tests, imaging and referrals from overheard conversation, while publishing no accuracy figure at all, let alone one specific to orders. Drafting a medication order is a clinical action rather than a text suggestion, so the disclosure burden is higher, not lower. Same call and same reasoning as Oracle Health Clinical AI Agent, which is the useful comparison here.

No accuracy figure, no model card, no named models and no evaluation methodology published. The gap is conspicuous because competitors in the same price band do publish a transcription accuracy rate. A second candour flag: the vendor's own pages carry inconsistent adoption claims, variously citing more than 50,000, more than 80,000 and more than 100,000 physicians, with no denominator or date attached to any of them. A buyer cannot tell from published material which figure is current or what it counts.

Evidence is customer testimonial and vendor case study, for example a named clinic reported saving over two hours daily on documentation. No peer reviewed publication, no controlled comparison, no independent evaluation and no published accuracy benchmark located. Graded C on the standing precedent that scale of use and satisfaction anecdotes do not substitute for evidence of benefit. This sits in stark contrast to the same category's randomized trial evidence for Nabla and Microsoft Dragon Copilot.

The vendor states it signs business associate agreements and applies HIPAA administrative, physical and technical safeguards with industry standard encryption, and third party reviews report a short audio retention window of roughly seven days. That retention figure was reported by comparison sites rather than confirmed on Sunoh's own materials in this pass, so treat it as unverified and ask for it in writing. No explicit statement was located on whether customer audio or transcripts are used to train models, which is the decisive commitment on this axis.

States plainly that it executes business associate agreements and follows HIPAA safeguards, and it is sold self serve with a free trial, which implies a standard rather than individually negotiated agreement. The specific terms are not published for inspection before contracting.

Not assessed. A SOC 2 attestation is asserted on third party comparison pages, including ones published by a direct competitor, but was not confirmed on Sunoh's own materials or a trust centre in this verification pass. This index does not grade a certification it has not seen evidenced by the vendor. Refresh candidate.

Not a regulated medical device and no clearance is claimed or required for ambient documentation.

Nothing located. No fairness statement, no subgroup analysis, no accent or dialect performance disclosure. The absence carries more weight here than it would elsewhere because multilingual capability is a headline marketing claim, explicitly pitched at the multicultural United States patient population, yet no evidence is offered that performance holds across the languages and accents being marketed to. That is precisely the failure mode this index tracks across speech products.

Deep and native inside eClinicalWorks: desktop EHR, eClinicalTouch for iPad and eClinicalMobile, with structured import directly into the Progress Note and order pre fill on mobile rather than copy and paste. Outside eCW the picture is weaker than the marketing implies. Sunoh brands itself EHR agnostic and names Epic, athenahealth and Oracle Health, but third party reviews record that depth varies by site and no integration architecture is documented. Buy it for eClinicalWorks and treat the cross EHR claim as requiring site specific proof.

Not assessed. Cloud delivered with desktop, iOS, Android and iPad clients, but no residency, hosting region or sub processor detail was located in this pass.

Publishes a price, which alone puts it ahead of most of this category, and offers a free trial with no contract and no credit card. The listed rate is 149 US dollars per provider per month, also expressed as roughly 1.25 US dollars per visit. Held at B rather than A for two stated qualifiers that make the published number incomplete: the rate is labelled promotional or limited time, and eClinicalWorks states that additional monthly charges may apply without specifying them. A published price that is provisional and admits unquantified add ons is better than silence but is not a rate card a buyer can budget from.

The broadest specialty reach of any independent scribe assessed in this index, and it is enumerated rather than implied. Beyond primary care, dermatology, rheumatology and behavioral health with DAP notes, it produces dental periodontal charting and dental treatment plans and covers vision. Dental and optometry documentation is a genuinely different note structure that almost no competing ambient scribe attempts, and it is the clearest reason a multi specialty or dental group would shortlist Sunoh over a physician focused tool. Multilingual capture is claimed across the range, though without published performance by language.