AI medical scribes for IVF clinics compared (2026): fertility-specific vs general
Vendors change fast. If something here is out of date, tell us and we will correct it and note the change.
The short version. The twelve products here split into two groups: six that publish a fertility or IVF page, and six general ambient scribes that do not. Which group to buy from depends on where your documentation load actually sits, not on which group "wins". If your week is mostly consultations, a general scribe with a named EMR integration and a published price will serve you well. If it is mostly monitoring visits, referrals, calls and messages, a consultation scribe is solving the smaller half of your problem, and the fertility group, ours included, is where to look.
We build one of the products in this table, the AI medical scribe for IVF clinics, so read the last row with that in mind. We also quote per clinic rather than publishing prices, which most of this table does too, and which we count against everyone, including ourselves, further down.
Every factual statement below about another company comes from that company's own public pages, fetched on the date shown against it and linked in the references. Where a vendor does not state something publicly, the entry says not stated publicly. It does not say "no". A missing answer on a marketing site is a missing answer, not a missing capability, and several of these companies will happily tell you in a call what they have not put on a page.
What this compares on, and what it ignores
Most scribe comparisons rank on note quality, specialty count and price. Those are reasonable for a multi-specialty group and close to useless for a fertility practice, where the documentation problem has a particular shape: a lot of it is not a consultation, and the parts that are consultations turn on cycle context that a generalist has no reason to model.
So the dimensions here are:
- Fertility vocabulary and cycle context: does the vendor publicly claim anything about reproductive medicine specifically?
- Referral OCR: does it read an incoming fax or scan into a structured record?
- Call and message capture: does it document anything outside the room?
- EMR write-back: which systems, named?
- Clinician review model: what the vendor says about who signs.
- Data residency: Canada, US, EU.
- Consent handling: what the vendor states.
- Pricing transparency: is a number published?
Note quality is deliberately absent. Nobody can compare it honestly from public pages, and every vendor's own evaluation says they win.
Two groups, not one list
The products a fertility clinic will actually be shown fall into two groups, and comparing them on one axis flatters both. The first group builds for fertility, or at least publishes a fertility page: HealthOrbit AI, Meddilink's MedAI Scribe, Vero, PatientNotes, S10.AI and us. The second group builds a general ambient scribe used across dozens of specialties and does not claim fertility specifically: Abridge, Microsoft Dragon Copilot, Freed, Heidi, Nabla, Suki.
The useful question is not which group wins. It is which of the two problems your clinic actually has, and the honest answer for a lot of practices is the general one.
The fertility-specific group
| Fertility page | EMR write-back (named) | Data residency | Pricing published | Self-serve trial | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HealthOrbit AI | Dedicated IVF page: transfer notes, embryo quality, semen and hormone assessments[11] | —[11] | — | No[11] | Yes, free trial[11] |
| Meddilink (MedAI Scribe) | The most clinically specific page in this list; detail below[12] | Its own MedART EMR only[12] | — | No[12] | Book a call[12] |
| Vero | Organised by visit type: investigation review, cycle planning, preservation[13] | —[13] | —; claims HIPAA, PIPEDA, SOC 2 Type II[13] | A /pricing page exists[13] | Yes, 10 free encounters a month, no card[13] |
| PatientNotes | Page exists; returns 403 to automated fetches, nothing quoted[14] | None named; "transfer of notes to electronic health record (EHR) systems"[25] | — | Not verifiable; its pricing page also blocks automated fetches[14] | Yes, 14-day trial[25] |
| S10.AI | A coding and documentation reference, not a product page[15] | —[15] | HIPAA and GDPR in production; SOC 2 Type II in progress[15] | No[15] | Book a call[15] |
| Fertiligent Scribe | Cycle-aware measurements, fertility templates, and the encounters outside the room | Any fertility EMR, configured per clinic; one-way write of the signed note | Canadian or US, chosen per clinic; set out on our security page | No, quoted per clinic | 14-day trial, no card; live demo on synthetic data |
— means not stated publicly on the pages checked.
OmniMD also appeared in the live result set for these queries. Its AI scribe page claims "50+ EHR systems" and "50+ outpatient specialties" but does not mention fertility, IVF or reproductive endocrinology anywhere[16]. It is in the general group by its own description, and is listed here only because a clinic searching for an IVF scribe will be shown it.
The general-purpose group
On the three fertility-specific dimensions (cycle context, referral OCR, call and message capture) this group's public answer is almost uniformly nothing; the two exceptions, Heidi's REI customer story[6] and Dragon Copilot's on-demand recordings[3], are covered below. So the table compares the four things they do answer.
| EMR write-back (named) | Data residency | Pricing published | Self-serve trial | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abridge | — | — | No[2] | — |
| Microsoft Dragon Copilot | Embedded in supported EHRs such as Epic; PowerScribe One[3] | —; available in 10 countries incl. US and Canada[3] | No[3] | — |
| Freed | "push to top browser-based EHRs", not named[4] | "All data is stored within the United States"[5] | Yes: from $39/mo[4] | Yes, 7-day trial[4] |
| Heidi | A Teams/Enterprise feature, not named[7] | Canadian data hosted in Quebec[8] | Free tier published; paid prices not stated[7] | Yes, free tier[7] |
| Nabla | Epic, athenahealth, Oracle, NextGen, Arya EHR, Greenway Health[9] | —; retention "fully configurable"[9] | No[9] | — |
| Suki | Epic, Oracle Health, athenahealth, MEDITECH[10] | — | No[10] | — |
— means not stated publicly on the pages checked.
What each product says it does in the room
The two tables above are about buying. These are about using: the things a clinician notices in the first week. Every cell is what the vendor's own page says, on the date in the reference; nothing here comes from using a competitor's product, which is also why note quality, speed and ease of use are not rows. One table per group, features down the side.
| HealthOrbit AI | Meddilink | Vero | PatientNotes | S10.AI | Fertiligent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Languages | Yes, no count[11] | 90+[23] | 60[22] | "Any"[25] | 60+[24] | 32 |
| Custom templates | IVF templates[11] | In its own EMR[23] | Yes; shared library[22] | Yes[25] | Yes[24] | 16, plus your own |
| Dictation too | — | — | Yes[22] | Yes[25] | Yes[24] | Yes |
| Live prompts in the room | — | — | Live transcript[22] | — | Cues during the visit[24] | Checklist of what the note still needs |
| Tracing to transcript | — | — | — | — | — | Every sentence, or flagged |
| Patient summary | — | — | Instructions, letters[13] | Action-plans[25] | — | Yes, in the patient's language |
| Coding suggestions | ICD-10, CPT[11] | — | ICD-10[22] | — | ICD-10, CPT, HCC[24] | OHIP, MBS, OPCS-4; ICD-10-CM in the US, no CPT |
| Apps beyond the browser | iOS, Android[11] | — | Desktop, iOS, Android[13] | iOS[25] | iOS, Android, desktop[24] | Web only |
— means not stated publicly on the pages checked.
| Abridge | Dragon Copilot | Freed | Heidi | Nabla | Suki | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Languages | 28[17] | Yes, no count[3] | 90+[18] | 110+[19] | — | 80[21] |
| Custom templates | — | Yes[3] | Yes[18] | Yes; shared library[7] | Yes[9] | — |
| Dictation too | — | — | Yes[18] | Yes[19] | Yes[9] | Yes[10] |
| Live prompts in the room | Care gaps in real time[17] | Real-time insights[3] | — | — | — | — |
| Tracing to transcript | A grounding claim[1] | — | — | — | — | — |
| Patient summary | Yes[17] | After-visit summaries[3] | Yes, in the patient's language[18] | Handouts[19] | Yes, on its French pages[9] | Yes, in 80 languages[21] |
| Coding suggestions | Yes[17] | Yes[3] | ICD-10, CPT, E/M[18] | Teams plans[7] | E/M, ICD-10[20] | Yes[10] |
| Apps beyond the browser | — | Mobile, desktop, in Epic[3] | Any device[4] | Desktop[19] | iOS, Android, extension[9] | iOS, Android[10] |
— means not stated publicly on the pages checked.
Two things stand out. The general group is stronger at the edges of the visit than the fertility group is: languages counted rather than claimed, dictation alongside ambient capture, billing codes, and an app for the phone in the clinician's pocket. We are on the wrong side of one of those rows ourselves, with no mobile app, and half of another: in the United States we suggest ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes but not CPT, which is licensed. What almost nobody publishes is anything about the middle of the visit, which is where a fertility scribe earns its keep: a prompt for what the note still needs while the patient is in the room, and a way to check a drafted sentence against what was actually said. Abridge surfaces care gaps in real time[17], S10.AI surfaces orders and coding cues during the visit[24] and Vero shows a live transcript[22], and none of the three describes a checklist of what the note still needs; on tracing, only Abridge makes a claim, that its output is "grounded in the conversation"[1]. Those two rows are the ones to ask a vendor to show rather than tell.
Reading the fertility group honestly
Meddilink's page is the most clinically specific thing published by anyone on this list, including us. It names antral follicle counts and endometrial thickness, oocyte retrieval and fertilisation rates, and embryo grading in Gardner, Veeck or Istanbul notation[12]. A clinician reading it can tell within a paragraph whether the author has sat in a monitoring room. The catch is structural rather than editorial: MedAI Scribe is "built natively inside the MedART EMR"[12], so the depth comes with a record system. If you are replacing your EMR anyway, that is an advantage. If you are not, it is the whole decision.
Vero organises around the visit rather than the feature, which is the right instinct. Its reproductive-medicine page is built from investigation review, cycle planning, fertility preservation and follow-up[13]: the encounter types, not a capability list. It is also the only vendor in either group publishing HIPAA, PIPEDA and SOC 2 Type II together[13], and it gives a clinician ten free encounters a month with no card[13], which means a curious REI can test it this afternoon without involving procurement. What the page does not do is go below the visit type: no follicle measurements, no retrieval counts, no grading.
HealthOrbit sits between the two. The IVF page is real, naming embryo transfer notes, embryo quality, semen analyses and hormone assessments[11], and it claims automated CPT/ICD coding and multilingual transcription, with a free trial and a demo[11]. No EHR is named, and no residency answer is published on that page.
S10.AI's infertility page is not a product page. It is a coding and documentation reference (definition, ICD-10 comparison, audit risks, a documentation template) with the product underneath it[15]. That is a legitimate way to rank and a genuinely useful page for a biller, but a clinic evaluating a fertility scribe will not find one described on it. Its compliance statement is unusually straight: HIPAA and GDPR controls in production, BAA on request, SOC 2 Type II in progress[15].
PatientNotes is the one entry we still cannot verify in full. Its IVF-physician page ranks for these queries and returns 403 to any automated fetch, as do its home and pricing pages, so this table quotes nothing from them[14]. Its features page does answer: any language, prompt templates, a Dictate Pro tool, patient action-plans sent after the session, an iOS app, a 14-day trial, and a transfer of notes into "electronic health record (EHR) systems" with none named[25]. Read the row as incomplete, not as unfavourable, and if you work there, the corrections note below is genuine. It already carries one correction of ours: until 18 September 2026 this row quoted a price, a seven-day trial and an EHR description from patientnotes.ai, a different company with the same name. It now cites only PatientNotes Pty Ltd, whose IVF page is the one that ranks.
Specialist does not mean integrated
Four of the six pages here name no EMR integration at all, and Meddilink names only its own. So "fertility-specific" in this market mostly means fertility vocabulary and templates rather than fertility systems. A clinic that assumed the specialist products integrate more deeply than the generalists has it backwards on the published evidence: Nabla and Suki name more EMRs than this whole group. Our own answer is neither a list nor a silence: the integration is scoped per clinic during onboarding, against whatever that clinic runs.
Reading the general group honestly
The missing fertility answers in this group are doing real work. None of these vendors claims fertility-specific cycle logic on its public pages, and that is not the same as none of them handling a fertility consultation well. A general ambient scribe drafting a new-patient REI consultation is drafting a conversation, which is what it is good at. The gap opens at the monitoring visit and outside the room.
Heidi is the only one of the six that publicly puts its name to fertility. It published a customer story in March 2026 from Dr. Jenna McCarthy, a board-certified reproductive endocrinologist at IVFMD, quoting "probably five to ten minutes per consult"[6]. That is a real fertility clinician on the record, which is more than most of this list has, and more than we have published.
Freed is the only one with a published price. Starter at $39/mo, Core at $79/mo, Premier at $104/mo billed annually or $119/mo monthly, Groups on request, with a seven-day trial[4]. A solo practice can decide about Freed on a Tuesday afternoon without talking to anyone, which is a real advantage over every other row including ours.
Freed is also the most specific about data handling of anyone here. "All data is stored within the United States"; SOC 2 Type 2; BAAs signed; audio deleted once notes and quality checks are complete; "AI is only trained on de-identified notes"[5]. Those sentences answer more of a Canadian or US clinic's procurement questionnaire than most of this table does.
Heidi is the only one to publish a Canadian data-residency answer. "For Canadian users, patient data is hosted on cloud infrastructure located in Quebec", alongside PIPEDA and provincial privacy compliance[8]. For an Ontario clinic weighing PHIPA obligations, that is a meaningful, checkable statement.
Nabla and Suki name the most EMRs. Nabla lists Epic, athenahealth, Oracle, NextGen, Arya EHR and Greenway Health[9]; Suki claims deep, real-time integrations with Epic, Oracle Health, athenahealth and MEDITECH[10]. If your clinic runs one of those and integration depth is the deciding factor, that is where to start.
Abridge and Microsoft bring scale. Abridge publishes SOC 2 Type 1 and Type 2, HIPAA, CCPA and TX-RAMP in its trust centre[2] and says it is used across "over 40 specialties"[1]. Dragon Copilot is embedded in Epic, is available to physicians in ten countries, and captures conversations and orders at the point of care or through on-demand recordings[3]. Neither of those is a small thing to compete with, and a large health system already standardised on Epic or Nuance has a good reason not to add a seventh vendor.
Where we are weaker
We publish no fertility customer story where Heidi does. We have no mobile app, and in the United States we suggest diagnosis codes but not CPT, which is licensed and which most of the general group includes. Our trial is also not self-serve: Vero and HealthOrbit let a clinician start without talking to anyone, and ours takes a message first. On price we sit with the majority of this table: a pricing page exists, but the numbers are quoted per clinic, and Freed's published $39 is a straighter answer than ours. Those are real disadvantages, and none of them is about the note.
Why the general group has no fertility answer
Three of the dimensions this comparison asks about (referral OCR, calls and messages, and cycle context) get almost no public answer from the general group, and it is worth saying why rather than treating it as a scoreboard.
These companies are not failing at fertility. They are succeeding at a different problem. The ambient scribe market was built around the encounter that dominates primary care, hospital medicine and most specialties: a patient talks, a clinician reasons, a note follows. Optimising that encounter across a hundred specialties is a large, valuable and genuinely hard business, and it is the one Abridge, Nuance, Suki and Nabla are in.
A fertility practice's documentation is differently distributed. A patient in a stimulation cycle generates one consultation and then five or six monitoring visits, a stack of nurse calls, and a run of portal messages: plus the referral that started it, which somebody typed in by hand before she existed in the record at all. A scribe that documents the consultation perfectly has covered the smallest pile.
That is the whole argument for a fertility-specific product, and it is an argument about distribution of work, not about model quality. If your practice's documentation genuinely is consultation-shaped, pick from the general group on price, integration and residency, and you will do fine.
How to choose, if you are the one deciding
Decide which group you are buying from, and be honest about why. A fertility-specific product is worth a premium only if your documentation load actually sits where fertility puts it: outside the consultation. Count a real week before deciding: consultations, monitoring visits, incoming referrals, nurse calls, portal messages. If consultations are most of it, a general scribe with a named EMR integration and a published price will serve you better than a specialist one without either. If monitoring visits and referrals are most of it, the general group is solving the smaller half of your problem no matter how good the note is.
Then, in order:
- Residency and consent, not features. If your clinic is in Ontario, a vendor that cannot tell you where the audio lives is not yet a candidate, whatever the note quality. Ontario's IPC guidance on AI scribes is the right document to procure against.
- Then EMR. Specialist does not reliably mean integrated: most of the fertility group names no third-party write-back, while Nabla and Suki name six and four EMRs respectively. If a published, named integration into the system you already run is the deciding factor, the general group is where to look. Otherwise ask every vendor on this page, us included, what they will actually do with your system and what it costs, and treat a vague answer as a no.
- Then trial two, on your own recordings. Not a scripted demo: five real de-identified encounters, reviewed by the clinician who would actually sign them, timed. And do not let trial availability decide the shortlist. Vero and HealthOrbit let a clinician start today, and the ones that do not are not thereby worse; they are selling to the clinic rather than to the clinician.
Corrections
If you work at one of these companies and something here is wrong or out of date, tell us and we will fix it and note the change. Everything above is sourced to a page we can link; if you have published a better answer since 31 August 2026, we would rather cite that.
18 September 2026: the PatientNotes row had mixed two companies that share the name. The price, seven-day trial and EHR description came from patientnotes.ai; the IVF-physician page that ranks belongs to PatientNotes Pty Ltd (patientnotes.app). The row and the FAQ now cite only the latter.
Test the last row: book a demo of the AI medical scribe for fertility clinics with your own de-identified referrals and call recordings, and see whether the cells we quote per clinic come back with straight answers.
References
References [1]–[10] fetched 31 August 2026; [11]–[16] fetched 17 September 2026; [17]–[25] fetched 18 September 2026.
- [1] Abridge, Ambient AI for Clinicians
- [2] Abridge Trust Center
- [3] Microsoft Dragon Copilot
- [4] Freed, Pricing
- [5] Freed, Security and Privacy
- [6] Heidi, How Dr. Jenna McCarthy brought presence back to fertility care (17 March 2026)
- [7] Heidi, Pricing
- [8] Heidi, Canada compliance
- [9] Nabla, Ambient AI for Clinical Documentation & EHR
- [10] Suki
- [11] HealthOrbit AI, AI Scribe for IVF Clinics (fetched 17 September 2026)
- [12] Meddilink, How AI Medical Scribes Are Transforming IVF Clinics (fetched 17 September 2026)
- [13] Vero, Vero for Reproductive Medicine (fetched 17 September 2026)
- [14] PatientNotes Pty Ltd, whose IVF-physician page at
patientnotes.app/professions/ivf-physician-ivfreturned 403 to every automated request on 17 and 18 September 2026, as did its home and pricing pages - [15] S10.AI, Infertility (fetched 17 September 2026)
- [16] OmniMD, AI Medical Scribe for Doctors (fetched 17 September 2026)
- [17] Abridge, home page (fetched 18 September 2026)
- [18] Freed, Features (fetched 18 September 2026)
- [19] Heidi, Scribe (fetched 18 September 2026)
- [20] Nabla, Coding (fetched 18 September 2026)
- [21] Suki, For Clinicians (fetched 18 September 2026)
- [22] Vero, home page (fetched 18 September 2026)
- [23] Meddilink, MedAI Scribe (fetched 18 September 2026)
- [24] S10.AI, AI Medical Scribe (fetched 18 September 2026)
- [25] PatientNotes Pty Ltd, Features (fetched 18 September 2026)
- AI Scribes: Key Considerations for the Health Sector, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (28 January 2026)
Related:
- Ambient AI scribe or dictation: what changes for a fertility practice
- What an AI scribe has to get right at an IVF monitoring visit
- IVF and fertility EMR software compared (2026)
Sergei Gorlovetsky, CEO, Fertiligent
