Scribeable vs Nabla:
Considering Nabla? Here is a factual look at how Scribeable differs — on pricing transparency, who owns the account, and the capital structure behind the "we don't train on your data" promise both companies make.
120+ clinicians · 2,600+ notes generated — real counters, no composites (scribeable.ai/transparency)
Why Physicians Switch from Nabla
No published pricing — nabla.com routes every rate question to "Talk to our team," so budgeting starts with a sales conversation
No public pricing page exists for Nabla as of July 2026 (nabla.com/pricing returns a 404)
Positioned as an enterprise/health-system sale, so an individual clinician cannot see terms before engaging sales
Two Companies, the Same "We Don't Train" Promise
Nabla's own site states plainly: "We don't train our models on your data." Scribeable makes the same promise, in writing, in the BAA. The difference isn't the promise — it's what happens if a future funding round makes a data-licensing deal attractive. Nabla has raised $120M across institutional VC rounds; Scribeable has raised $0 outside capital. A bootstrapped cap table isn't a marketing line. It's the reason the policy you sign in Q2 still reads the same in Q14.
Publish the Price or Don't
Nabla's marketing shows a "Try it for free" button, but the actual pricing page does not exist — every rate conversation happens through a sales team. Scribeable publishes its rates: $39/month for Lite, $79/month for Pro, with a 14-day free trial and no credit card to start. You can see the price before you ever talk to anyone.
Who Holds the Account
Nabla's homepage positions the product for health systems and telehealth companies — an enterprise-procured seat. A Scribeable account belongs to the clinician who signs up, and it moves with that clinician across every job they take. That is a structural difference in who controls the account, not a feature comparison.
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
Pricing & Access
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Published, self-serve pricingnabla.com has no /pricing page as of Jul 2026; the site routes to "Talk to our team" | ||
| Sign up without a sales callnabla.com shows a "Try it for free" CTA but does not publish trial terms or tier limits | ||
| Free trial, no card requiredNabla advertises a free trial; specific terms are not published |
Ownership & Capital
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Clinician-owned, portable accountNabla sells to health systems and telehealth companies as an enterprise/team product | ||
| Zero outside capital (bootstrapped)Nabla has raised $120M total, including a $70M Series C (HV Capital, Highland Europe, DST Global, Cathay Innovation) |
Clinical Intelligence
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Deterministic clinical calculators (236, code-scored)Not stated on nabla.com as of Jul 2026 | ||
| Two-stage AI verification (draft + clarification pass)Not stated on nabla.com as of Jul 2026 |
Competitor facts on this page are sourced to each company's own public site and verified as of 2026-07-11; see page source for the full citation list. Competitor capabilities and pricing may change after that date.
Pricing Comparison
Nabla
Not published — site routes to a sales conversation
Contact for pricing
Scribeable's rates are on the pricing page today. Nabla's public site does not list a price; third-party estimates exist but are not confirmed by Nabla itself, so they are not repeated here.
Other AI scribes optimize for time to first draft. Scribeable optimizes for time to signed note, with a verification pass built in before you sign.
5.0 on the App Store120+
Clinicians on board
2,600+
Patient notes generated
Which Should You Choose?
Choose Nabla if you...
- Health systems or telehealth companies already running an enterprise Nabla deployment
- EU-based practices where Nabla's stated GDPR compliance and international orientation are a specific requirement
- Residents and interns Nabla lists as eligible for unlimited use — worth confirming current terms directly with Nabla, since they are not published
Frequently Asked Questions
Compare Other Alternatives
vs Dragon Copilot
Considering Microsoft Dragon Copilot, the product formerly sold as Nuance DAX? Here is a factual look at how Scribeable differs — on pricing transparency, who owns the account, and who each company answers to.
vs Abridge
Considering Abridge? Here is a factual look at how Scribeable differs — on pricing transparency, who owns the account, and the capital structure behind the platform.
vs DeepScribe
Considering DeepScribe? Here is a factual look at how Scribeable differs — starting with the fact that DeepScribe's current public positioning is oncology-specific.
Start Your 14-Day Free Trial — No Credit Card
Compare Scribeable to Nabla on your own terms. Generate your first note in under 5 minutes.
Scribeable vs Nabla - AI Medical Scribe Comparison
Considering Nabla? Here is a factual look at how Scribeable differs — on pricing transparency, who owns the account, and the capital structure behind the "we don't train on your data" promise both companies make.
Why Physicians Switch from Nabla
- No published pricing — nabla.com routes every rate question to "Talk to our team," so budgeting starts with a sales conversation
- No public pricing page exists for Nabla as of July 2026 (nabla.com/pricing returns a 404)
- Positioned as an enterprise/health-system sale, so an individual clinician cannot see terms before engaging sales
Why Choose Scribeable Over Nabla
- $39-79/month, published on the pricing page — no sales call required to see a rate
- Clinician-owned, portable account that moves with you across employers
- 236 clinical calculators, code-scored and validated, inside every note
- A two-stage AI pipeline: a draft pass, then a separate verification pass that asks a clarification question instead of guessing
- 14-day free trial (or 15 notes, whichever comes first), no credit card required
- Zero outside capital — bootstrapped, no VC fund with a future exit to plan around
Two Companies, the Same "We Don't Train" Promise
Nabla's own site states plainly: "We don't train our models on your data." Scribeable makes the same promise, in writing, in the BAA. The difference isn't the promise — it's what happens if a future funding round makes a data-licensing deal attractive. Nabla has raised $120M across institutional VC rounds; Scribeable has raised $0 outside capital. A bootstrapped cap table isn't a marketing line. It's the reason the policy you sign in Q2 still reads the same in Q14.
Publish the Price or Don't
Nabla's marketing shows a "Try it for free" button, but the actual pricing page does not exist — every rate conversation happens through a sales team. Scribeable publishes its rates: $39/month for Lite, $79/month for Pro, with a 14-day free trial and no credit card to start. You can see the price before you ever talk to anyone.
Who Holds the Account
Nabla's homepage positions the product for health systems and telehealth companies — an enterprise-procured seat. A Scribeable account belongs to the clinician who signs up, and it moves with that clinician across every job they take. That is a structural difference in who controls the account, not a feature comparison.
Feature Comparison: Scribeable vs Nabla
Pricing & Access
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Published, self-serve pricing | Yes | No |
| Sign up without a sales call | Yes | Partial |
| Free trial, no card required | Yes | Partial |
Ownership & Capital
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Clinician-owned, portable account | Yes | No |
| Zero outside capital (bootstrapped) | Yes | No |
Clinical Intelligence
| Feature | Scribeable | Nabla |
|---|---|---|
| Deterministic clinical calculators (236, code-scored) | Yes | Partial |
| Two-stage AI verification (draft + clarification pass) | Yes | Partial |
Pricing Comparison
Scribeable: Free tier, then $39-79/month, published
Nabla: Not published — site routes to a sales conversation
Scribeable's rates are on the pricing page today. Nabla's public site does not list a price; third-party estimates exist but are not confirmed by Nabla itself, so they are not repeated here.
Which Should You Choose?
If pricing transparency, an account that stays yours across jobs, and a bootstrapped cap table matter to you, that's what Scribeable is built around. If your organization is already procuring Nabla enterprise-wide, or you specifically need Nabla's stated GDPR-aligned data handling for an EU-based practice, that may be the better fit for that context.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Nabla publish its pricing?
Not as of July 2026. Nabla's website has no public pricing page (nabla.com/pricing returns a 404); every "Try it for free" and "Talk to our team" path leads to a sales conversation rather than a published rate. Scribeable's pricing page lists $39/month (Lite) and $79/month (Pro) directly.
Is Nabla VC-backed?
Yes. Nabla has raised $120M in total funding, including a $70M Series C round (June 2025) with HV Capital, Highland Europe, DST Global, and Cathay Innovation among the investors (source: Nabla's own funding announcement and the round's press coverage). Scribeable has raised $0 in outside capital.
Does Nabla train on patient data?
Nabla's own site states it does not train its models on customer data and does not store audio by default. Scribeable makes the same commitment in its BAA. The open question for any VC-backed vendor is what a future funding round does to that policy — a question that does not apply to a bootstrapped company with no outside investors to answer to.
Can I sign up for Scribeable without going through a sales process?
Yes. Scribeable is self-serve: start a 14-day free trial (or 15 notes, whichever comes first) with no credit card at dashboard.scribeable.ai/signup. No demo request or sales call is required to start.
Sources
Nabla's public site has no pricing page and routes to "Talk to our team" / "Try it for free" CTAs (no published tier terms).
nabla.com/pricing returns a 404 as of July 2026.
"We don't train our models on your data"; "No audio stored by default"; HIPAA and GDPR compliant; SOC 2 Type 2 and ISO 27001 certified.
Nabla raised a $70M Series C (June 2025), bringing total funding to $120M.
Nabla's Series C investors include HV Capital (lead), Highland Europe, DST Global, and Cathay Innovation.
Scribeable pricing: Lite $39/mo, Pro $79/mo.
Explore More
Discover how Scribeable can help your practice with AI-powered clinical documentation