Scribeable vs Augmedix:
Scribeable offers more specialty coverage (46 vs ~25), built-in clinical calculators, HCC coding, quality measures, and transparent pricing — all without Google Cloud dependency or enterprise-only access.
Why Physicians Switch from Augmedix
Expensive enterprise-only pricing with no published rates or self-service signup
Google Cloud ecosystem dependency limits flexibility and vendor choice
Limited billing optimization features — no HCC capture, no quality measures
Head-to-Head Comparison
Independence vs. Ecosystem Lock-In
Augmedix is backed by Google and built on Google Cloud infrastructure. That means your clinical documentation is tied to one ecosystem — and if your organization ever wants to move off Google, your documentation tooling moves with it. Scribeable is platform-independent, running on its own infrastructure with no cloud vendor dependency. You own your workflow, not a tech giant.
More Specialties, Better Coverage
Augmedix supports approximately 25 specialties. Scribeable covers 46 with dedicated templates built by practicing specialists in each field — from orthopedic surgery to psychiatric evaluations to ICU critical care. If your practice spans multiple specialties or you need documentation formats beyond what Augmedix offers, Scribeable delivers more out of the box without waiting for enterprise feature requests.
Revenue Capture That Pays for Itself
Augmedix focuses on documentation speed, but leaves revenue on the table. Scribeable analyzes every encounter for ICD-10 codes, HCC/RAF opportunities, E&M level optimization, and MIPS quality measures. Physicians who switch report capturing $150K+ in additional annual revenue per provider through better coding — turning your documentation tool from a cost center into a profit center.
Rounding Mode: Documentation Built for Hospital Medicine
Hospital-based physicians see dozens of patients on rounds daily. With Augmedix, you manage separate recordings for each patient encounter. Scribeable's Rounding Mode lets you hit record once and walk your entire list — the AI detects patient transitions and generates individual notes from a single recording session. For hospitalists and rounding physicians, this eliminates the biggest friction point in daily documentation.
Same Patient. Same Encounter.
See why physicians say Scribeable notes are “actually usable” — with integrated risk scores, billing codes, and clinical reasoning that typical AI scribes simply don’t generate.
HPI
62 y/o male presents with chest pain for 2 hours. Substernal, pressure-like, radiating to left arm. Associated with diaphoresis and shortness of breath. Pain started while climbing stairs. Patient has history of HTN, DM2, and hyperlipidemia. Takes lisinopril, metformin, and atorvastatin. Denies recent illness or trauma.
Assessment & Plan
*Note examples are illustrative representations based on common AI documentation patterns. “Typical AI Scribe” represents composite characteristics of standard tools and does not depict any specific product. Patient scenarios are entirely fictional. Clinical notes should always be reviewed by a licensed provider.
AI Medical Scribe Note Quality Comparison
Scribeable produces clinically enriched notes with integrated risk calculators (HEART Score, CHA₂DS₂-VASc, Wells PE, PHQ-9, Caprini VTE), automated billing code optimization (E&M levels, HCC/RAF capture, CPT codes), dangerous diagnosis exclusion documentation, evidence-based prescribing citations, CMS compliance for operative reports, HEDIS care gap tracking, and MIPS quality measure documentation. Typical AI scribes produce basic notes without these advanced clinical features.
ED Chest Pain: 62-year-old male presenting with substernal chest pressure, diaphoresis, and exertional dyspnea
HPI: 62 y/o male presents with 2 hours of substernal chest pressure, rated 8/10, radiating to left arm and jaw. Onset during exertion (climbing stairs). Associated with diaphoresis and exertional dyspnea. Pressure-like quality, unrelieved by rest. No pleuritic component, no positional variation, no reproducibility with palpation. Risk factors: HTN (10 years), DM2 (8 years), hyperlipidemia, 30-pack-year smoking history (quit 5 years ago), family history of MI (father at age 58). Current medications: lisinopril 20mg daily, metformin 1000mg BID, atorvastatin 40mg daily. Denies cocaine use, recent immobilization, or prior VTE.
Assessment & Plan: 1. Acute Chest Pain — High-risk presentation HEART Score: 7 (High Risk) - History: moderately suspicious (2), EKG: non-specific ST changes (1), Age: >65 (2), Risk factors: ≥3 (2), Troponin: pending initial (0) - Risk stratification: >12% 6-week MACE event rate → full ACS workup - Serial troponins q3h, 12-lead EKG (initial + repeat at 60 min) - ASA 325mg PO administered, heparin drip per ACS protocol - Cardiology consulted for probable cath lab activation Dangerous Diagnosis Exclusion: - STEMI: No ST elevation on initial EKG — serial monitoring - Aortic dissection: No tearing quality, no pulse differential, no mediastinal widening on CXR - PE: Low pretest probability (Wells PE: 1.5) — no immobilization, no prior VTE, no hemoptysis 2. Hypertension — BP 168/94 on arrival, improved to 142/88 post-NTG - Continue home lisinopril, recheck prior to disposition 3. DM2 — Glucose 186 on arrival - Hold metformin (contrast exposure risk), sliding scale insulin PRN
Cardiology Consult: 71-year-old female with new-onset atrial fibrillation and decompensated heart failure
HPI: 71 y/o female with known HFrEF (EF 35% on TTE 6 months ago), HTN, DM2, and CKD Stage 3a (baseline Cr 1.4), consulted for new-onset atrial fibrillation with RVR. Progressive exertional dyspnea (NYHA II → IV over 2 weeks), 3-pillow orthopnea (new), PND, and 4+ pitting edema to knees bilaterally. Weight gain of 8 lbs over 2 weeks. Triggers explored: dietary indiscretion (holiday meals), medication non-adherence (ran out of furosemide 10 days ago). No prior AF history, no palpitations previously. Denies chest pain, syncope, or presyncope.
Assessment & Plan: Reason for Consult: New-onset atrial fibrillation with RVR in setting of acute decompensated HFrEF. Requesting Service: Internal Medicine (Dr. Patel) 1. New-onset Atrial Fibrillation with RVR CHA₂DS₂-VASc Score: 5 (Female sex, age ≥75, HTN, DM, HF) - Stroke risk: 6.7%/year → strong anticoagulation indication - Rate control: avoid diltiazem (negative inotropy in HFrEF) → amiodarone 150mg IV bolus then 1mg/min × 6h - Anticoagulation: apixaban 5mg BID (preferred over warfarin given age + fall risk) - TEE prior to any cardioversion attempt if AF duration uncertain - HAS-BLED: 2 (HTN, age) — acceptable bleeding risk 2. Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) NYHA Functional Class: IV (dyspnea at rest) - IV furosemide 80mg BID (2.5× home oral dose), net negative 1-1.5L/day - Carvedilol held (acute decompensation), restart when euvolemic - Add sacubitril/valsartan when stable (PARADIGM-HF indication: EF ≤40% on ACEi) - BNP trend: 1,840 → monitor for response to diuresis 3. CKD Stage 3a — Cr 1.4 (baseline), monitor with aggressive diuresis - KDIGO risk: moderate — monitor Cr/K daily with diuresis
Operative Note: Right total knee arthroplasty in 68-year-old male with severe tricompartmental osteoarthritis
Operative Note: Preoperative Diagnosis: Right knee severe tricompartmental osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade IV) Postoperative Diagnosis: Same Procedure: Right total knee arthroplasty Surgeon: Dr. James Morrison (attending — present and scrubbed for entire case) Assistant: Dr. Chen (PGY-4) Anesthesia: Spinal with sedation (Dr. Rivera) Implants: Smith & Nephew Legion CR, Size 5 femoral / Size 4 tibial / 10mm poly insert EBL: 150 mL Tourniquet Time: 62 minutes (pneumatic, 275 mmHg) Specimens: Femoral and tibial bone cuts — to pathology Complications: None Findings: Severe tricompartmental degenerative changes with exposed subchondral bone medially, grade III chondromalacia laterally, intact PCL
Post-Operative Plan: 1. Weight Bearing: WBAT right LE with front-wheeled walker 2. DVT Prophylaxis: Enoxaparin 40mg SQ daily × 14 days + mechanical (SCDs while inpatient) 3. Pain: Multimodal — scheduled acetaminophen 1g Q6h, meloxicam 15mg daily, tramadol 50mg Q6h PRN (max 14 days) 4. Antibiotics: Ancef 2g IV × 24h post-op 5. PT: Initiate POD0 PM — CPM machine, active/passive ROM, gait training 6. Follow-up: 2 weeks (staple removal + wound check), 6 weeks (X-ray + ROM assessment) 7. VTE Risk: Caprini Score 7 (High Risk) — extended pharmacologic prophylaxis indicated
Primary Care: 55-year-old female Medicare Advantage patient with DM2, HTN, depression, and overdue preventive care
HPI: 55 y/o female Medicare Advantage patient presenting for chronic disease management follow-up. Last visit 3 months ago. Diabetes (DM2, 8 years): A1c 8.2% (up from 7.6%), reports adherence but dietary indiscretion during holidays. Home glucose logs show fasting 140-180 range. No hypoglycemic episodes. Denies polyuria, polydipsia, vision changes, or foot numbness. Last diabetic eye exam: 14 months ago (overdue). Last podiatry visit: never. Hypertension (12 years): Home BP readings averaging 135-145/85-90. Taking lisinopril 20mg daily consistently. Depression (MDD, recurrent): PHQ-9 score today: 14 (moderately severe). Persistent low mood, anhedonia, poor sleep (initial insomnia), decreased concentration. On sertraline 50mg × 6 months with partial response. Denies SI/HI, denies alcohol or substance use. Columbia Suicide Severity: negative for ideation and behavior.
Assessment & Plan: 1. DM2, Uncontrolled (A1c 8.2%) — HCC 19 - Add empagliflozin 10mg daily (SGLT2i — CV and renal benefit, EMPA-REG OUTCOME indication) - Continue metformin 500mg BID (not escalating given GI intolerance history) - Diabetic eye exam referral (overdue 2 months — HEDIS measure) - Podiatry referral for initial foot exam - Recheck A1c in 3 months, target <7% 2. Hypertension, Suboptimally Controlled — HCC (when with CKD/DM) - BP today 138/86 — above target of <130/80 (ACC/AHA for DM patients) - Increase lisinopril to 40mg daily - Home BP log review in 4 weeks 3. Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate — HCC 59 - PHQ-9: 14 (moderately severe) — partial response to sertraline 50mg - Increase sertraline to 100mg daily - Safety plan reviewed, crisis line provided (988) - Follow-up in 4 weeks, recheck PHQ-9 - If inadequate response → consider augmentation or psychiatry referral 4. Preventive Care Gaps Addressed: - Mammogram ordered (last: 26 months ago — HEDIS BCS measure) - Colonoscopy referral (age 55, average risk, never screened — HEDIS COL) - Tobacco screening: former smoker, quit 3 years — MIPS measure 226 - Annual flu vaccine administered today — MIPS measure 110
Feature-by-Feature Comparison
Core Documentation
| Feature | Scribeable | Augmedix |
|---|---|---|
| Ambient recording | ||
| AI note generation | ||
| Multi-specialty support (46+)Augmedix covers ~25 specialties | ||
| Clinical calculators (31 built in) | ||
| Two-stage AI verification | ||
| Multi-patient rounding modeRecord entire rounds, get all notes at once |
Billing & Coding
| Feature | Scribeable | Augmedix |
|---|---|---|
| ICD-10 code suggestions | ||
| E&M level optimization | ||
| HCC/RAF code capture (8,400+ entries) | ||
| CPT-II code generation | ||
| Quality measures (50+ MIPS/HEDIS) | ||
| MIPS scoring with payment adjustments |
Platform & Access
| Feature | Scribeable | Augmedix |
|---|---|---|
| iOS native app | ||
| Apple Watch app | ||
| Web dashboard | ||
| Browser extension (EHR insertion) | ||
| Free tier available | ||
| Self-service signupAugmedix requires enterprise sales process |
Compliance
| Feature | Scribeable | Augmedix |
|---|---|---|
| HIPAA compliant | ||
| BAA included | ||
| Platform independenceAugmedix depends on Google Cloud infrastructure |
*Feature comparisons reflect publicly available information as of February 2026. Competitor capabilities may change. Revenue figures represent potential outcomes reported by select users and are not guaranteed. Individual results vary based on practice type, specialty, and patient volume.
Pricing Comparison
Augmedix
Enterprise pricing only (contact sales)
Contact for pricing
Scribeable offers transparent, published pricing with more features at a fraction of the cost — no Google Cloud dependency or enterprise contract required
Which Should You Choose?
Choose Augmedix if you...
- Health systems deeply invested in Google Cloud ecosystem
- Large organizations with existing Augmedix enterprise agreements
- Institutions with dedicated IT teams to manage Google integrations
Frequently Asked Questions
Compare Other Alternatives
vs Nuance DAX
Scribeable offers 31 clinical calculators, 50+ quality measures, MIPS scoring, and continuity of care that DAX simply does not have — at a fraction of the cost, with no enterprise contract required.
vs Nabla
Scribeable offers superior note quality, more features, and better pricing — all built by clinicians who understand documentation needs. More note types, better billing, and lower cost.
vs Abridge
Scribeable delivers superior note quality built by clinicians, with more specialty support, comprehensive billing features, and transparent pricing accessible to all practitioners.
Start Your 14-Day Free Trial — No Credit Card
See why physicians switch from Augmedix. Generate your first note in under 5 minutes.
Scribeable vs Augmedix - AI Medical Scribe Comparison
Scribeable offers more specialty coverage (46 vs ~25), built-in clinical calculators, HCC coding, quality measures, and transparent pricing — all without Google Cloud dependency or enterprise-only access.
Why Physicians Switch from Augmedix
- Expensive enterprise-only pricing with no published rates or self-service signup
- Google Cloud ecosystem dependency limits flexibility and vendor choice
- Limited billing optimization features — no HCC capture, no quality measures
Why Choose Scribeable Over Augmedix
- 46 specialties with dedicated templates vs Augmedix's ~25
- 31 clinical calculators scored and validated inside every note — Augmedix has zero
- 50+ quality measures with real-time MIPS scoring and payment adjustments
- 8,400+ HCC crosswalk entries with CPT-II generation built in
- Works independently — no Google Cloud ecosystem dependency
- Transparent pricing from $0/month — no enterprise contract required
- Rounding Mode, Apple Watch, and two-stage AI verification
Independence vs. Ecosystem Lock-In
Augmedix is backed by Google and built on Google Cloud infrastructure. That means your clinical documentation is tied to one ecosystem — and if your organization ever wants to move off Google, your documentation tooling moves with it. Scribeable is platform-independent, running on its own infrastructure with no cloud vendor dependency. You own your workflow, not a tech giant.
More Specialties, Better Coverage
Augmedix supports approximately 25 specialties. Scribeable covers 46 with dedicated templates built by practicing specialists in each field — from orthopedic surgery to psychiatric evaluations to ICU critical care. If your practice spans multiple specialties or you need documentation formats beyond what Augmedix offers, Scribeable delivers more out of the box without waiting for enterprise feature requests.
Revenue Capture That Pays for Itself
Augmedix focuses on documentation speed, but leaves revenue on the table. Scribeable analyzes every encounter for ICD-10 codes, HCC/RAF opportunities, E&M level optimization, and MIPS quality measures. Physicians who switch report capturing $150K+ in additional annual revenue per provider through better coding — turning your documentation tool from a cost center into a profit center.
Rounding Mode: Documentation Built for Hospital Medicine
Hospital-based physicians see dozens of patients on rounds daily. With Augmedix, you manage separate recordings for each patient encounter. Scribeable's Rounding Mode lets you hit record once and walk your entire list — the AI detects patient transitions and generates individual notes from a single recording session. For hospitalists and rounding physicians, this eliminates the biggest friction point in daily documentation.
Feature Comparison: Scribeable vs Augmedix
Core Documentation
| Feature | Scribeable | Augmedix |
|---|---|---|
| Ambient recording | Yes | Yes |
| AI note generation | Yes | Yes |
| Multi-specialty support (46+) | Yes | Partial |
| Clinical calculators (31 built in) | Yes | No |
| Two-stage AI verification | Yes | No |
| Multi-patient rounding mode | Yes | No |
Billing & Coding
| Feature | Scribeable | Augmedix |
|---|---|---|
| ICD-10 code suggestions | Yes | Partial |
| E&M level optimization | Yes | Partial |
| HCC/RAF code capture (8,400+ entries) | Yes | No |
| CPT-II code generation | Yes | No |
| Quality measures (50+ MIPS/HEDIS) | Yes | No |
| MIPS scoring with payment adjustments | Yes | No |
Platform & Access
| Feature | Scribeable | Augmedix |
|---|---|---|
| iOS native app | Yes | Yes |
| Apple Watch app | Yes | No |
| Web dashboard | Yes | Yes |
| Browser extension (EHR insertion) | Yes | Partial |
| Free tier available | Yes | No |
| Self-service signup | Yes | No |
Compliance
| Feature | Scribeable | Augmedix |
|---|---|---|
| HIPAA compliant | Yes | Yes |
| BAA included | Yes | Yes |
| Platform independence | Yes | No |
Pricing Comparison
Scribeable: Free tier, then $89-149/month
Augmedix: Enterprise pricing only (contact sales)
Scribeable offers transparent, published pricing with more features at a fraction of the cost — no Google Cloud dependency or enterprise contract required
What Physicians Say
Our health system evaluated Augmedix but the Google dependency and enterprise pricing were non-starters for our independent group. Scribeable took 5 minutes to set up, costs a fraction of what Augmedix quoted, and the billing codes have already paid for themselves.
Dr. K. Martinez, Pulmonology, Independent Group Practice
Which Should You Choose?
Choose Scribeable for more specialties, built-in clinical intelligence, transparent pricing, and platform independence. Built by clinicians for clinicians. Choose Augmedix only if your health system is deeply invested in the Google Cloud ecosystem and has dedicated IT support.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does Scribeable compare to Augmedix for documentation quality?
Scribeable matches or exceeds Augmedix's documentation quality with 46 specialty-specific templates (vs ~25), 31 clinical calculators validated inside every note, and two-stage AI verification. Built by practicing clinicians who validate output across every specialty.
Is Augmedix tied to Google Cloud?
Yes. Augmedix is backed by Google and built on Google Cloud infrastructure. This means your documentation platform is tied to one ecosystem. Scribeable is platform-independent with no cloud vendor lock-in, giving you more flexibility and control.
How much does Augmedix cost compared to Scribeable?
Augmedix does not publish pricing and requires an enterprise sales process with custom quotes. Scribeable pricing is transparent: free for 5 notes/month, $89/month for Pro, $149/month for Elite. No contracts, no sales calls, no Google dependency.
Does Augmedix offer HCC coding like Scribeable?
No. Augmedix focuses primarily on documentation automation and has limited billing features. Scribeable includes 8,400+ HCC crosswalk entries, E&M level optimization, CPT-II code generation, and 50+ quality measures with MIPS scoring — revenue capture features worth $150K+ per provider annually.
Can I switch from Augmedix to Scribeable easily?
Yes. Scribeable requires no enterprise implementation, no IT involvement, and no Google Cloud integration. Sign up for free, download the app, and generate your first note in minutes. You can run both tools in parallel to compare quality before committing.
Explore More
Discover how Scribeable can help your practice with AI-powered clinical documentation