Methodology and conflict of interest
Short version: every fact comes from the vendor's own website, with the pages and capture date in each row. Costs are computed from published prices on a synthetic file with stated rules. Medrecords AI publishes this site and sells 1 of the 25 products, so we follow 6 written rules, listed below.
Limits: We read vendor websites, not contracts or invoices, and we didn't run the products on a shared test file: a "Not stated" cell means the vendor's pages didn't say, and quoted prices can differ.
Where the facts come from
| Source | Used for | Captured |
|---|---|---|
| Google results for 4 buyer searches | Which products to include; what ranking pages cover | 2026-11-12 |
| Each vendor's pricing, product and security pages | Every cell of the feature, pricing and terms matrices | 2026-11-12, linked per row |
| medrecords.ai/pricing.md and llms.txt | Every fact about Medrecords AI | 2026-11-12 |
| Published rates in the pricing matrix | The cost per file tables, the calculator and the picker | Same as the pricing matrix |
Pages were fetched through a web data service and, where it failed, with a direct request. Saved copies sit with the site's research files so any cell can be traced to the text it came from.
Which products are in, and which are out
In: software that produces a summary or chronology from medical records, named in the Google results for "medical records summary software" and 3 close searches, or in the ranking listicles, plus clinical and general HIPAA tools physicians ask about. Out: record retrieval services and human review firms, which sell a service, and products whose sites we couldn't load on the capture date. 25 products made the cut.
How each cell is coded
- Yes when the vendor's page says it in plain words.
- Partly when the vendor ties it to a plan or output, or states something narrower (a BAA with its AI providers rather than with you). The note says which.
- Not stated when the pages we read don't say. We don't infer from screenshots, reviews or third-party posts.
- No when the vendor says it doesn't, or says the opposite (OctopusLM's FAQ says duplicates are billed).
We don't test output quality. A "Yes" for page citations is a vendor claim, not a measured hit rate.
How file costs are computed
The synthetic file (no real patient) has 500, 2,000 or 5,000 uploaded pages, 20% exact duplicates. The 20% is an illustration, not a measured average. For 1 file we take the smallest published purchase that covers it. For monthly volume we price prepaid vendors at the tier 12 months of volume reaches and monthly plans at the cheapest fit. Duplicates are billed unless the vendor states otherwise. The full rules are on the cost per file page; the calculator and picker run the same rules in your browser.
Our conflict of interest, and the rules we follow
Medrecords AI publishes this site and sells 1 of the 25 products. That is a conflict, so we follow 6 rules:
- Our product is labeled "ours" in every table, chart and pick where it appears.
- It gets the same columns and the same coding rules as the other 24, with facts only from its public pricing file and llms.txt.
- We name the cases where another product is the better buy, on the home page and on the Medrecords AI page, including where it costs more.
- The picker publishes its default weights and shows how a different weighting removes our product from the top 6.
- No vendor pays to be listed, and there are no affiliate links. Links to other vendors carry rel="nofollow".
- Vendors can send corrections with a source to aj@medrecords.ai; confirmed corrections go live within 2 business days, including ones that hurt our product's position.
We don't claim to be neutral by ownership. We aim to be fair by method, and every input is published so you can check it.
How often it's updated
Vendor pages are rechecked at least every 45 days, and each row shows its capture date. When a price changes we update the row, the cost tables and the picker data together, because they read from 1 data file.