Scribeable 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.
Why Physicians Switch from Nabla
Limited US-specific billing features — ICD-10 and HCC gaps hurt revenue
Fewer note types restrict specialty coverage for US practices
Higher starting price ($99/mo) with less comprehensive feature set
Head-to-Head Comparison
The Billing Capture Gap
Nabla builds solid ambient documentation, but its billing features were designed with the European market in mind. US practices need deep ICD-10, HCC/RAF, and E&M coding support to capture the revenue their documentation supports. Scribeable was built for US healthcare from day one, with billing optimization that identifies missed codes and suggests appropriate complexity levels — turning documentation time into measurable revenue.
Broader Specialty Coverage
Nabla supports a growing but limited set of note formats. Scribeable offers 15+ specialty-specific templates — from cardiology H&Ps to psychiatric evaluations to ED provider notes — each built with input from practicing specialists. If your practice spans multiple specialties or you need documentation formats beyond basic SOAP notes, Scribeable delivers more out of the box.
Lower Cost, More Value
At $89/month vs Nabla's $99/month starting price, Scribeable delivers more features for less money. Add in the free tier with 15 notes per month (vs Nabla's limited trial), Apple Watch support, and comprehensive billing optimization, and the value gap widens significantly. Scribeable doesn't just save you money on the subscription — it helps you earn more through better coding.
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 | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Ambient recording | ||
| AI note generation | ||
| SOAP notes | ||
| H&P notes | ||
| Discharge summaries | ||
| Multi-patient rounding modeRecord entire rounds, get all notes at once |
Billing & Coding
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| ICD-10 suggestions | ||
| E&M level analysis | ||
| HCC code capture | ||
| CPT suggestions |
Platform
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| iOS native app | ||
| Apple Watch support | ||
| Web app | ||
| Browser extension |
Pricing & Access
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Free tierLimited trial only | ||
| Published pricing | ||
| No credit card to start |
*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
Nabla
Starting around $99/month
Contact for pricing
Scribeable plans start at $89/month with more features, more note types, and superior quality
Which Should You Choose?
Choose Nabla if you...
- European practices needing EU data residency
- Practices integrated with Nabla's European EHR partners
- Practices already invested in Nabla's ecosystem
Frequently Asked Questions
Compare Other Alternatives
vs Nuance DAX
Scribeable delivers superior note quality at 50-75% less cost. Built by clinicians who understand documentation pain points, with faster setup and no enterprise complexity.
vs Abridge
Scribeable delivers superior note quality built by clinicians, with more specialty support, comprehensive billing features, and transparent pricing accessible to all practitioners.
vs DeepScribe
Scribeable delivers superior note quality at transparent, lower pricing. Built by clinicians with faster note generation and full web + mobile access with Apple Watch support.
Try Scribeable Free — 15 Notes, No Credit Card
See why physicians switch from Nabla. Generate your first note in under 5 minutes.
Scribeable vs Nabla - AI Medical Scribe Comparison
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.
Why Physicians Switch from Nabla
- Limited US-specific billing features — ICD-10 and HCC gaps hurt revenue
- Fewer note types restrict specialty coverage for US practices
- Higher starting price ($99/mo) with less comprehensive feature set
Why Choose Scribeable Over Nabla
- Superior note quality — built by clinicians, for clinicians
- Lower cost: $89/mo vs Nabla's $99/mo
- More comprehensive billing (ICD-10, HCC, E&M optimization)
- More note types (15+ vs limited selection)
- Generous free tier with 15 notes/month
- Native iOS app with Apple Watch support
- Unique Rounding Mode: record an entire round, get all notes at once — no competitor has this
The Billing Capture Gap
Nabla builds solid ambient documentation, but its billing features were designed with the European market in mind. US practices need deep ICD-10, HCC/RAF, and E&M coding support to capture the revenue their documentation supports. Scribeable was built for US healthcare from day one, with billing optimization that identifies missed codes and suggests appropriate complexity levels — turning documentation time into measurable revenue.
Broader Specialty Coverage
Nabla supports a growing but limited set of note formats. Scribeable offers 15+ specialty-specific templates — from cardiology H&Ps to psychiatric evaluations to ED provider notes — each built with input from practicing specialists. If your practice spans multiple specialties or you need documentation formats beyond basic SOAP notes, Scribeable delivers more out of the box.
Lower Cost, More Value
At $89/month vs Nabla's $99/month starting price, Scribeable delivers more features for less money. Add in the free tier with 15 notes per month (vs Nabla's limited trial), Apple Watch support, and comprehensive billing optimization, and the value gap widens significantly. Scribeable doesn't just save you money on the subscription — it helps you earn more through better coding.
Feature Comparison: Scribeable vs Nabla
Core Documentation
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Ambient recording | Yes | Yes |
| AI note generation | Yes | Yes |
| SOAP notes | Yes | Yes |
| H&P notes | Yes | Partial |
| Discharge summaries | Yes | Partial |
| Multi-patient rounding mode | Yes | No |
Billing & Coding
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| ICD-10 suggestions | Yes | Yes |
| E&M level analysis | Yes | Partial |
| HCC code capture | Yes | No |
| CPT suggestions | Yes | Partial |
Platform
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| iOS native app | Yes | Yes |
| Apple Watch support | Yes | No |
| Web app | Yes | Yes |
| Browser extension | Yes | Yes |
Pricing & Access
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | Yes | Partial |
| Published pricing | Yes | Yes |
| No credit card to start | Yes | No |
Pricing Comparison
Scribeable: Free, then $89-149/month
Nabla: Starting around $99/month
Scribeable plans start at $89/month with more features, more note types, and superior quality
What Physicians Say
I tried Nabla first because of the hype, but the note types were too limited for my internal medicine practice. Scribeable had the H&P format I needed on day one, plus the billing codes were a game-changer.
Dr. A. Patel, Internal Medicine, Group Practice
Which Should You Choose?
Choose Scribeable for superior note quality, better billing optimization, more features, and lower cost. Built by clinicians who understand your needs. Choose Nabla only if you need European data residency.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does Scribeable compare to Nabla for note quality?
Scribeable consistently produces higher quality notes because it was built by practicing clinicians who validate output across 15+ specialties. Nabla produces good general documentation, but Scribeable's specialty-specific templates and two-stage AI verification deliver more clinically accurate results.
Is Nabla cheaper than Scribeable?
No. Scribeable starts at $89/month while Nabla starts at $99/month. Scribeable also offers a free tier with 15 notes per month — Nabla only offers a limited trial period. When you factor in Scribeable's billing optimization features, the total value difference is substantial.
Does Scribeable work for European practices like Nabla?
Scribeable is optimized for the US healthcare market with US-specific billing codes, compliance standards, and note formats. If you practice in Europe and need EU data residency, Nabla may be a better fit. For US-based practices, Scribeable offers significantly more value.
Can I try Scribeable before switching from Nabla?
Absolutely. Scribeable offers 15 free notes per month with no credit card required. You can run both tools side by side and compare note quality, billing suggestions, and workflow before making a decision.
Explore More
Discover how Scribeable can help your practice with AI-powered clinical documentation