Best AI Scribes for eClinicalWorks 2026: Ranked, Compared, and Reviewed
The best AI scribes for eClinicalWorks in 2026 are Glass Health, Sunoh.ai, DeepScribe, and DeepCura. Glass ranks first when the buying question is not only note capture, but ambient documentation plus clinical decision support in one workflow. Sunoh, DeepScribe, and DeepCura all publish eClinicalWorks-specific workflow language, which gives buyers concrete demo questions before contracting.
If you are still building the category shortlist rather than making an eClinicalWorks-specific decision, start with our broader guide to the best AI medical scribes.
Quick answer + TL;DR table
This ranking weights public eClinicalWorks workflow evidence first, pricing transparency second, and whether a practice wants documentation plus CDS in one workflow third.
| Rank | Vendor | Public workflow signal | Public pricing signal | Why it makes the list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Glass Health | clinician-reviewed chart-context workflow | Starter $20/mo, Pro $90/mo, Max $200/mo | Combines AI scribing with clinical decision support in the same workflow |
| 2 | Sunoh.ai | eClinicalWorks says Sunoh is fully integrated and providers can import information into the Progress Note | Starting at $149/user/mo | Strong option if you want a workflow eClinicalWorks describes publicly |
| 3 | DeepScribe | eClinicalWorks page uses bi-directional / two-way integration language | Confirm current pricing with DeepScribe directly | Good choice when you want to validate sync behavior in detail |
| 4 | DeepCura | Page says “Native API integration. AI patient synopsis. Scribe It automation.” The same page also says “Four layers of eClinicalWorks integration.” | Confirm current pricing with vendor | Useful when you want a detailed API workflow review |
| 5 | Freed | Published Starter, Core, and Premier plans | Published plan tiers | Good for a light pilot and quick self-serve evaluation |
| 6 | Nabla | Homepage offers a free trial | Confirm current pricing with Nabla | Easy to sample before a longer buying cycle |
| 7 | Abridge | Homepage positions Abridge as enterprise-grade AI for clinical conversations | Contact vendor | Relevant for formal ambulatory or enterprise evaluations |
| 8 | Dragon Copilot (formerly DAX Copilot) | Verify current product scope and eClinicalWorks deployment details directly with Microsoft | Contact vendor | Consider when your organization wants a Microsoft-led evaluation path |
| 9 | HealOS | eClinicalWorks page says six AI agents for documentation, phone calls, insurance, authorizations, faxes, and billing | Contact vendor | Best when documentation and operations are part of the same project |
| 10 | Suki | Homepage says AI Assistant for Clinical Documentation & Coding and highlights voice-enabled editing | Contact vendor | Good fit when clinicians prefer a voice-enabled workflow |
The table sticks to positive public workflow statements and published pricing where available. For anything that affects chart governance, mobile behavior, or deployment scope, require a live demo.
How to evaluate an AI scribe for eClinicalWorks
Do not buy on adjectives. Buy on workflow evidence.
First, score patient-context access. In eClinicalWorks, ask what authorized chart context is available, how it reaches the clinician workflow, and how final review works. Glass’s eCW workflow is a good example of a clearly defined model: chart context informs the clinician workflow, and the clinician remains responsible for final review. That is a different implementation conversation from any workflow that automatically returns content to the chart after generation.
Second, score note destination and approval steps. A strong first draft is useful only if clinicians can review it quickly and know what happens next. Ask where the draft appears, who edits it, what the final approval step is, and how exceptions are handled when the note needs manual cleanup. In a real pilot, those workflow details matter more than generic claims about AI quality.
Third, evaluate edit burden, not just note generation. During a pilot, have clinicians grade the first draft on structure, specialty language, problem framing, and assessment-and-plan quality. If the draft is consistently close to done, the tool is saving time. If every note still needs heavy rewriting, the integration story matters less than buyers hoped.
Fourth, decide whether you want a documentation-first tool or a combined documentation-plus-clinical-support workflow. Glass combines ambient scribing with clinical decision support in the same workflow. If your clinicians routinely leave the note-writing tool to think through differentials, referrals, or next steps, that workflow choice matters.
Fifth, model total cost, not just the headline monthly fee. Budgeting should include subscription price, implementation time, clinician editing time, security review effort, and whether the team also wants clinical decision support in the same evaluation cycle. A cheaper pilot on paper can still become the more expensive rollout if adoption is weak or edits stay high.
Sixth, test security and implementation readiness early. Ask for the BAA, security materials, deployment model, and the exact data flow before you expand beyond a small pilot. If the IT and compliance teams do not understand the connection model, the clinical team will not get a clean pilot timeline.
Seventh, test mobile workflow, not just desktop screenshots. Many eClinicalWorks practices still have mixed desktop, tablet, and phone behavior across physicians, APPs, and support staff. If mobile use is part of the daily routine, make the vendor show it live.
Eighth, ask the vendor to explain data access and clinician review in plain terms. A vague "native integration" label is not enough. The vendor should show what patient context is available, where the generated note appears, what the clinician reviews, and which steps remain inside eClinicalWorks.
Ninth, keep the final scorecard simple: patient context in, note quality out, approval logic, mobile behavior, security review, and price. If a vendor cannot make those items clear, the ranking should not matter.
How the eCW AI scribe market changed in 2026
Three shifts define the eClinicalWorks market in 2026.
The first is the rise of public workflow proof. On the official eClinicalWorks Sunoh page, eClinicalWorks says Sunoh is “Fully Integrated with eClinicalWorks” and says “The provider can then edit as necessary and import the information into the Progress Note within the eClinicalWorks EHR.” For buyers, that matters because the workflow language is public and concrete.
The second is more specific third-party integration language. DeepScribe’s eClinicalWorks page uses “Bi-directional integration with eClinicalWorks” and “Two-way integration with eClinicalWorks.” DeepCura’s eClinicalWorks page says “Native API integration. AI patient synopsis. Scribe It automation.” The same page also says “Four layers of eClinicalWorks integration.” HealOS’s eClinicalWorks page says it brings six AI agents into eClinicalWorks for documentation, phone calls, insurance, authorizations, faxes, and billing. Buyers are no longer comparing “AI scribe” versus “no AI scribe.” They are comparing workflow shapes.
The third is a stronger preference for broader clinician workflow support. Glass combines AI scribing with ambient CDS and can use chart context in a clinician-reviewed workflow. For eClinicalWorks buyers, the buying discussion should center on context awareness, note quality, clinician review, and subscription value instead of vague integration claims.
#1 Glass Health
Glass Health ranks first because it lets a practice evaluate documentation and clinical support in one workflow. For a clinic that wants both, that combined setup can be more useful than reviewing a scribe in isolation and then running a second evaluation later for decision support.
Glass Health lists transparent pricing. Starter is $20/month, Pro is $90/month, and Max is $200/month. Those published tiers make it easier to model a small pilot, a department rollout, or a larger clinic budget. Glass also has a dedicated ambient CDS page, so a practice can review note generation and clinical decision support together.
For eClinicalWorks specifically, Glass supports a chart-context workflow that can bring patient context into the clinician experience. The practical evaluation is whether that context improves the draft, the CDS layer, and the final clinician review process.
That model is useful for buyers because it is straightforward to evaluate. The pilot questions become practical: how much patient context improves the draft, how useful the CDS layer is, how much editing remains, and how the workflow fits the clinic’s existing eCW process. Across Epic, athenahealth, and eClinicalWorks, buyers should confirm current workflow fit directly with Glass.
If you want to evaluate Glass’s documentation-plus-CDS workflow, start with Glass and review EHR integration and pricing.
#2 Sunoh.ai
Sunoh.ai ranks second because eClinicalWorks gives buyers a dedicated Sunoh page with clear workflow language. On that page, eClinicalWorks says Sunoh is “Fully Integrated with eClinicalWorks” and says providers can edit and “import the information into the Progress Note within the eClinicalWorks EHR.”
That is meaningful because it gives practice managers a public statement about the eCW workflow itself, not just generic ambient-scribe language. Sunoh’s own pricing page adds another practical signal: “Starting at $149 per user per month for a limited time.”
If you want a workflow that eClinicalWorks publicly describes, Sunoh belongs near the top of the shortlist. In the demo, confirm specialty fit, current note destination, and the review steps your clinicians will actually use.
#3 DeepScribe
DeepScribe ranks third because its eClinicalWorks page gives buyers a specific integration phrase to validate: “Bi-directional integration with eClinicalWorks” and “Two-way integration with eClinicalWorks.”
That wording changes the evaluation. Instead of asking only whether the AI writes a decent note, you can ask what moves from eClinicalWorks into DeepScribe, what returns to the chart, who approves it, and how the workflow handles edits or exceptions. Those details determine whether the promised time savings actually show up in clinic.
DeepScribe is a strong fit when your team wants to pressure-test sync behavior; confirm commercial terms directly with the vendor. If Glass is also on the shortlist, use Glass vs DeepScribe to compare workflow, pricing, and pilot questions.
#4 DeepCura
DeepCura ranks fourth because its eClinicalWorks resource page gives buyers several exact workflow phrases to review. DeepCura’s page says “Native API integration. AI patient synopsis. Scribe It automation.” It also says “Four layers of eClinicalWorks integration.”
Those phrases are enough to make a live demo highly specific. Ask the vendor to show exactly what “Native API integration” means in your environment, where the AI patient synopsis appears, how Scribe It automation fits the clinician review flow, and how the stated “Four layers of eClinicalWorks integration” map to your deployment.
Confirm current pricing directly with the vendor before you model rollout costs. In this review, DeepCura stays high on the list because it publishes eClinicalWorks-specific workflow language that buyers can test live.
#5 Freed
Freed stays in the top five because it publishes a clear plan structure. Freed’s pricing page lists Starter, Core, and Premier plans. That is helpful for solo clinicians and small practices that want to understand packaging before they schedule a demo.
For eClinicalWorks buyers, the next step is operational: confirm where the note draft lands, how clinicians approve it, and how the workflow behaves on desktop and mobile. In the sources reviewed here, Freed’s pricing page is the most useful public starting point, and the pilot should answer the eCW handoff questions.
If you want a side-by-side on workflow, pricing, and pilot questions, compare Freed with Glass vs Freed.
#6 Nabla
Nabla earns sixth place because its homepage offers a free trial. That makes an initial evaluation easier for independent practices that want hands-on testing before a longer buying cycle.
For eClinicalWorks specifically, the key next step is to validate the exact charting workflow, clinician approval path, and current pricing directly with Nabla. A free trial can help you judge note quality quickly, but the buying decision still turns on how the tool fits your eCW process.
If Glass is also on your shortlist, review Glass vs Nabla to compare workflow, pricing, and pilot questions.
#7 Abridge
Abridge belongs in serious ambulatory and enterprise evaluations. On its homepage, Abridge describes itself as “Enterprise-grade AI for clinical conversations—trusted by the largest healthcare systems.” That positioning alone makes it relevant for larger organizations.
For an eClinicalWorks-specific buying process, the important move is to ask Abridge for the current eCW workflow walkthrough, rollout model, and clinician review flow during the demo. That keeps the evaluation grounded in the same practical questions you would ask any other vendor.
Glass Health lists pricing, offers ambient CDS, and gives buyers a patient-context workflow they can evaluate up front. For a direct comparison, use Glass vs Abridge.
#8 Dragon Copilot (formerly DAX Copilot)
Microsoft/Nuance remains part of some enterprise evaluation conversations. For this article, the practical recommendation is simple: verify current product scope, pricing, and eClinicalWorks deployment details directly with Microsoft.
Glass Health lists pricing and provides an EHR integration overview. If your organization wants to compare enterprise options, make every vendor answer the same workflow questions on note quality, patient context, governance, security review, and implementation effort.
#9 HealOS
HealOS stands out because its eClinicalWorks page covers six AI agents for documentation, phone calls, insurance, authorizations, faxes, and billing.
That makes HealOS relevant when the documentation project is tied to intake, prior authorizations, phone workflows, and billing workload, not just note generation. A clinic trying to reduce back-office bottlenecks may value that breadth.
It ranks lower here because this article is specifically about AI scribes for eClinicalWorks. Still, if your project combines documentation with practice-operations automation, HealOS deserves a meeting.
#10 Suki
Suki rounds out the list because its homepage positions it as an “AI Assistant for Clinical Documentation & Coding” and highlights voice-enabled editing. That combination keeps it relevant for clinician-led evaluations where documentation style and voice workflow matter.
If your physicians want a tool that feels interactive during note creation, Suki is worth a demo. In an eClinicalWorks buying process, ask for the exact note handoff, mobile behavior, and review steps so you can compare it cleanly with the other options here. For a direct comparison, see Glass vs Suki.
Comparison table
This is the side-by-side that matters when you are narrowing to three vendors.
| Vendor | Public workflow signal | Public pricing signal | What to validate in the pilot | Fit in this review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glass Health | Chart-context workflow with ambient CDS | Starter $20/mo, Pro $90/mo, Max $200/mo | Note quality, CDS usefulness, clinician review flow, mobile workflow | Best when you want documentation plus CDS in one workflow |
| Sunoh.ai | eClinicalWorks says Sunoh is fully integrated and providers can import into the Progress Note | Starting at $149/user/mo | Specialty workflow, edit flow, and your exact care-setting rollout | Strong option if you want a workflow eClinicalWorks publicly describes |
| DeepScribe | Bi-directional / two-way integration language on the eCW page | Contact vendor | Exact sync objects, approvals, and exception handling | Good when sync behavior is central to the evaluation |
| DeepCura | Page says “Native API integration. AI patient synopsis. Scribe It automation.” The same page also says “Four layers of eClinicalWorks integration.” | Confirm current pricing with vendor | Exact API method, note destination, and approval steps | Good when you want a detailed API workflow review |
| Freed | Public Starter, Core, and Premier plan structure | Published plan tiers | Exact eCW handoff and clinician editing burden | Useful for small-practice pilots |
| Nabla | Free trial on homepage | Confirm current pricing with vendor | eCW note flow, clinician approval path, and contracting | Useful for trial-first evaluations |
| Abridge | Enterprise-grade AI for clinical conversations | Contact vendor | Current eCW rollout model and clinician review workflow | Relevant for larger formal evaluations |
| Dragon Copilot (formerly DAX Copilot) | Verify current product scope directly with Microsoft | Contact vendor | Current eCW deployment approach and contracting path | Relevant for enterprise buying committees |
| HealOS | Six AI agents for documentation, phone calls, insurance, authorizations, faxes, and billing in eClinicalWorks | Contact vendor | Whether the broad workflow matches your project scope | Best when documentation and ops automation are linked |
| Suki | AI Assistant for Clinical Documentation & Coding with voice-enabled editing | Contact vendor | Voice workflow, note destination, and mobile behavior | Useful when clinicians prefer voice-enabled interaction |
The point of the table is not to guess at missing details. It is to isolate the positive public workflow statements each vendor makes and turn them into focused demo questions.
Best fit by practice type
Solo practice: Start with Freed if you want published plan tiers and a lighter first pilot. Start with Glass if you want documentation plus CDS in the same workflow and you value transparent pricing from day one.
Small or mid-size group: Sunoh is a useful early demo if you want a workflow that eClinicalWorks publicly describes, including import into the Progress Note. Glass is a strong option if leadership wants to evaluate documentation and CDS together under one subscription. DeepCura is worth a demo when the team wants to review the quoted “Native API integration. AI patient synopsis. Scribe It automation.” language in detail.
FQHC: Glass is a strong fit when longitudinal patient context and CDS matter as much as note drafting. Glass can bring authorized chart context into the clinician workflow while preserving clinician review. Sunoh is a practical option when you want a workflow that eClinicalWorks describes publicly.
Specialty group: DeepScribe and DeepCura rise when the group wants to validate sync behavior or API-oriented workflow language in a specialty-specific demo. Suki belongs in the mix when clinicians strongly prefer voice-enabled editing.
Enterprise or health-system clinic: Abridge, Microsoft/Nuance, DeepScribe, Sunoh, and Glass can all fit, but the buying committee should normalize the same questions across all of them: implementation model, note destination, approval logic, mobile workflow, security review, and total subscription scope.
How Glass Health is different
Many eClinicalWorks practices are deciding whether to buy a standalone note tool or evaluate documentation alongside clinical support. Glass takes the latter approach. Glass combines AI scribing with Glass clinical decision support in the same subscription, with published pricing at Starter $20/month, Pro $90/month, and Max $200/month. That gives teams a single workflow and a single budget model to review before they expand the toolset around the clinician.
The workflow model is also unusually clear. For eClinicalWorks, Glass can use chart context to support ambient documentation and clinical decision support, with clinician review remaining central to the workflow. Across Epic, athenahealth, and eClinicalWorks, buyers should confirm current setup details directly with Glass.
That matters in practice. It keeps the implementation discussion focused on patient context, draft quality, clinician review, and CDS usefulness. During a pilot, the clinic can ask whether chart context improves the first draft, whether the plan section is more useful, and whether clinicians actually use the CDS layer during the visit or immediately after it.
If you want to evaluate Glass’s documentation-plus-CDS workflow, include Glass in the shortlist. For a broader CDS shortlist, see our guide to the best clinical decision support tools.
FAQ
What is the best AI scribe for eClinicalWorks?
In this review, Glass Health is the top overall choice if you want AI documentation and clinical decision support in one workflow. Sunoh.ai is a strong place to start if you want a workflow that eClinicalWorks publicly describes, including import into the Progress Note.
Is Sunoh free with eClinicalWorks?
Do not assume it is included. Sunoh’s published pricing page listed starting at $149 per user per month on 2026-04-17, so treat it as a paid add-on unless your eClinicalWorks contract says otherwise.
What is the difference between an integrated scribe and a bidirectional scribe on eCW?
An integrated scribe may use patient context or place note content into a defined eClinicalWorks workflow. A bidirectional scribe goes further and claims information can move both ways between the AI tool and eClinicalWorks. A clinician-reviewed chart-context model is another pattern: Glass’s eClinicalWorks workflow can use patient context while clinicians keep final chart control. Buyers should validate exactly what syncs, what approvals are required, and how exceptions are handled.
Can I run two scribes simultaneously on eCW?
You can run controlled pilots, but do not run two live production scribes on the same visit without IT, compliance, and clinician sign-off. Confirm audio handling, note ownership, and where each draft lands before you test side by side.
Does Glass Health work with eClinicalTouch and eClinicalMobile?
Glass’s eClinicalWorks workflow can use chart context in a clinician-reviewed experience. Confirm your exact eClinicalTouch or eClinicalMobile workflow during the pilot.
What should an eCW practice ask about final charting?
If a vendor says generated content can move into the chart, ask how approval, audit, exceptions, and rollback work. Treat any direct charting claim as a live-demo item.
Which AI scribe is best for FQHCs on eCW?
Glass is a strong fit when the FQHC wants documentation plus CDS and values longitudinal patient context. Glass can bring authorized chart context into the clinician workflow while preserving clinician review. Sunoh is also a strong fit when leadership wants a documentation workflow that eClinicalWorks publicly describes.
How do I switch from Sunoh to another scribe?
Run a short pilot, map the exact note destination, validate BAA and security paperwork, update templates, and define rollback steps before full rollout. The right switching plan is operational, not just technical.
Does any AI scribe for eCW include clinical decision support?
Yes. Glass combines AI scribing with Glass clinical decision support. If that workflow matters to your team, include Glass in the shortlist.
Start with Glass
If you want to test a documentation-plus-CDS workflow without adding another point solution first, start with Glass Health. Review the current pricing, read the EHR integration overview, and use the AI medical scribe hub if you want the broader category view before you buy.
In your demo, center the conversation on patient context, note review workflow, security review, and how clinicians will use CDS day to day. For enablement, ask your team to confirm workflow prerequisites, pilot user selection, and the exact review path from draft to final note. The rollout plan should stay focused on patient context, clinician review, and adoption.