Category

Best Healthcare AI tools

14 healthcare tools, ranked by our score. Our top pick is Abridge, followed by Nuance DAX and OpenEvidence.

Loading…

14 healthcare tools, ranked by our score. Our top pick is Abridge, followed by Nuance DAX and OpenEvidence. If you want to start without paying, look at OpenEvidence, Glass Health, Heidi Health. Every score is our own judgement of how well a tool does the job, and you can read how we score on the blog.

  1. Abridge: AI that listens to doctor-patient visits and drafts the clinical note in real time. Paid. Solthar Score 88/100.
  2. Nuance DAX: Ambient clinical documentation used across US health systems. Paid. Solthar Score 85/100.
  3. OpenEvidence: Answers clinical questions with citations straight from the medical literature. Free. Solthar Score 84/100.
  4. Viz.ai: Detects strokes and other time-critical findings on scans and alerts the team. Paid. Solthar Score 83/100.
  5. Aidoc: Radiology AI that flags urgent findings in the reading queue. Paid. Solthar Score 82/100.
  6. Med-PaLM: Google's medical question-answering research model. Paid. Solthar Score 82/100.
  7. Suki AI: Voice-first clinical assistant that drafts notes and handles orders. Paid. Solthar Score 81/100.
  8. Glass Health: Clinical decision support that drafts differentials from a patient summary. Freemium. Solthar Score 80/100.
  9. Tempus: Clinical and molecular data platform for precision oncology. Paid. Solthar Score 80/100.
  10. Heidi Health: Ambient scribe for consultations, popular with independent clinics. Freemium. Solthar Score 79/100.
  11. Hippocratic AI: Patient-facing agents for the non-diagnostic work that eats clinical time. Paid. Solthar Score 79/100.
  12. Nabla: Ambient documentation with strong European data residency. Paid. Solthar Score 78/100.
  13. Freed: Ambient scribe aimed at solo clinicians rather than hospital systems. Paid. Solthar Score 77/100.
  14. K Health: Symptom assessment built on real clinical records, with a doctor a tap away. Freemium. Solthar Score 77/100.

Head-to-head comparisons