Vibrant Practice
SCOPING NOTE FIRST. Vibrant Practice is not a summarisation tool, it is an AI native electronic health record and practice operating system, and it serves a market nothing else in this index covers: independent clinicians practising functional, integrative and longevity medicine, in concierge, direct primary care and hybrid models across North America and Europe. It is filed here because the clinical AI work it does is synthesis, reading a patient's data and laboratory results and turning them into charting and treatment plans, and cross listed into administrative automation for the intake, scheduling and billing side. The platform automates intake, documentation, appointment scheduling and billing, generates personalised treatment plans from patient data, lifestyle factors and medical history, and includes a patient application providing continuous communication, health tracking and personalised recommendations. Its clinical pitch centres on laboratory work, which is the right emphasis for its market: functional and longevity practice runs on large panels that a clinician must interpret and trend, and the company markets simplified labs, reduced charting time and faster clinical insight. It was founded in 2024 in Sacramento by Sunita Mohanty and Pedro Tabio. Mohanty was previously an AI product leader at Meta working on the Ray-Ban smart glasses and Oculus platforms, holds a Stanford Graduate School of Business degree, and speaks at the Institute for Functional Medicine and A4M. She has publicly argued that human in the loop is the correct approach both for coding and for anything relational or patient facing. The company raised 1.7 million dollars in pre seed funding in March 2025 from Anthemis Group, Dria Ventures, Emerson Collective, Hustle Fund and Lombardstreet Ventures, and sells on subscription. No customer is named, no deployment figure is published, and nothing about models, accuracy or clinical validation was located, so most axes below are Not Rated.
Capability Axes
The grade describes the mechanism, not the quality. The company is genuinely AI native rather than an established platform with models added, and AI drives the core clinical modules: documentation, laboratory synthesis and treatment plan generation. But what a clinician purchases is a practice operating system, and scheduling, billing, intake and the patient application would remain a coherent product for a functional medicine practice without any model layer at all. This index applies the same reasoning to every platform whose value stands substantially without the AI, and a C or B here is a factual statement about what is being bought rather than a criticism of the product.
A stated stance without a described mechanism. The founder has publicly argued that human in the loop is the correct approach for both coding and anything relational or patient facing, which is a considered position and better than silence, but this index does not grade a philosophy as an oversight mechanism. No confidence signal, threshold, abstention behaviour or required review step was located. The autonomy surface also deserves naming: the platform generates PERSONALISED TREATMENT PLANS from patient data, lifestyle factors and history, and pushes personalised recommendations to patients through its own application. Recommendations reaching a patient directly, rather than a clinician who filters them, is a materially different risk surface from a note a clinician reads, and nothing published describes what a clinician approves before a patient sees it. Ask exactly that.
Nothing was located. No model or model family named, no accuracy figure for laboratory interpretation, charting or treatment plan generation, no evaluation methodology and no model card. Not Rated records that the evidence was not retrieved rather than that the posture is poor, which is unremarkable for a company at pre seed stage but leaves a buyer with nothing to assess.
Commercial validation only. A 1.7 million dollar pre seed round in March 2025 with named institutional investors including Anthemis Group and Emerson Collective is real external diligence, and the founder's product background at Meta is verifiable. Nothing beyond that: no customer is named, no practice count or deployment figure is published, no case study exists and no clinical or operational outcome has been measured. Graded C rather than Not Rated because commercial traction is evidenced; clinical benefit is not.
No retention period, training use statement or de identification posture was located. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval. The estate is broader than a conventional practice record because the platform combines clinical data with lifestyle factors and continuous patient tracking through its own application, so establish what the patient app collects, how long it is held, and whether patient generated data is treated differently from clinical data.
No HIPAA compliance statement and no business associate agreement terms were located. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval. Note that as the system of record rather than a tool sitting beside one, the vendor's own compliance posture is the practice's compliance posture, so this should be the first item established rather than a later diligence step. European operation also raises GDPR obligations alongside HIPAA, and the two are not satisfied by the same measures.
No SOC 2, HITRUST, ISO 27001 or other attestation was located, and no trust centre or security page was found. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval. The bar is higher than for a point solution because this product holds the entire clinical record for a practice rather than a copy of part of it.
No FDA clearance, device authorisation or clinical decision support exemption analysis was located. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval. Two capabilities make the question live rather than academic: the platform interprets laboratory results and it generates personalised treatment plans, and it pushes personalised recommendations to patients directly through an application. Ask which framework the company believes governs the treatment planning and the patient facing recommendations, and to see the analysis written down.
The grade describes disclosure. The founder's stated human in the loop position is a genuine credit and unusual to find articulated publicly at this stage. Against that, no fairness, subgroup or demographic performance disclosure of any kind was located, and no governance or responsible AI documentation exists. One question matters more in this market than in most and is asked here neutrally rather than as a judgement on the field: this index asks every recommendation generating product what its output is GROUNDED IN, and credits products anchored to named published guidance a clinician can trace and dispute. In areas covered by well established society guidelines that question has a clear answer. In functional, integrative and longevity medicine the guideline base is less standardised and practice patterns vary more widely between clinicians, which makes the grounding question more important rather than less. Nothing published describes what the treatment plan generation is grounded in, and that is the single disclosure that would most improve this record.
This product IS the electronic health record rather than a tool integrating with one, so the axis inverts: the question is not what it connects to but what can get out of it. Nothing was located on interoperability standards, laboratory interface support, referral exchange or data portability, which matters disproportionately here because functional and longevity practice depends on large volumes of external laboratory data flowing in, and because a clinician replacing their system of record needs to know what happens to the record if they leave. Graded C because the all in one architecture is clearly established and the interoperability picture is entirely absent. Ask specifically about laboratory interfaces and about export on termination.
No hosting model, cloud provider, region or residency commitment was located. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval. Residency deserves a question because the company sells into both North America and Europe, and a single hosted estate serving both raises GDPR transfer considerations that a United States only vendor does not face.
No price, tier or figure was located, so Not Rated applies per the house convention. The pricing MECHANISM is disclosed, a subscription model sold to independent clinicians, which is a little more than most vendors here offer and is appropriate to a market of small practices that cannot run an enterprise procurement. Publishing the actual tiers would be straightforward for a product sold to individual clinicians and would place this vendor among the more transparent records in the index rather than among the majority.
Narrow, deliberate and genuinely uncovered elsewhere in this index. The target is independent clinicians practising functional, integrative and longevity medicine, operating in concierge, direct primary care and hybrid business models, across North America and Europe. That is a coherent and well defined segment with real differences from conventional ambulatory practice: heavier laboratory panels, longer consultations, lifestyle and root cause framing, and a patient population paying directly rather than through insurance. The founder's presence at the Institute for Functional Medicine and A4M indicates the company is engaged with the segment rather than marketing at it. Graded B rather than A because no specialty specific instrument, protocol or panel handling was evidenced, only asserted.
Pricing
Vendor-published figures are labeled as such. Figures labeled “Estimated” are derived from third-party sources and have not been confirmed by the vendor.
| Entry Price | Pricing Basis | BAA Tier | Implementation | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not published
|
Subscription, sold to independent clinicians in concierge, direct primary care and hybrid models. Figures not published. | Not published. Establish early rather than late: as the system of record, this vendor's compliance posture becomes the practice's compliance posture. | Not published. The platform is an all in one replacement rather than an add on, so migration from an existing system is the relevant cost and no figure or approach is stated. | Vendor Published |
No price, tier or figure was located, so commercial transparency is Not Rated per the house convention rather than graded down. The mechanism is disclosed, a subscription sold to independent clinicians, which suits a market of small practices that cannot run an enterprise procurement, and publishing actual tiers would be straightforward for a product sold to individuals. Four things to establish. The subscription unit, since per clinician, per practice and per patient panel models diverge sharply for concierge and direct primary care practices with small panels and high revenue per patient. What the patient application costs, because it is a second surface with its own usage and support burden and it is not stated whether it is bundled. What laboratory interfacing costs, since functional and longevity practice runs on large external panels and interface work is where practice platform implementations usually overrun. And what happens on exit, which matters more here than for any point solution in this index: this product replaces the system of record, so establish the export format, whether historical laboratory data and generated treatment plans come with you, and what it costs to leave. One stage caveat for a buyer rather than a criticism of the company: this is a 2024 founded business on a 1.7 million dollar pre seed round. Weigh the vendor continuity question accordingly when the product being bought is the practice's entire clinical record.