Best AI Scribes for Epic in 2026: Ranked for Hyperdrive

The best AI scribe for Epic in 2026 depends on whether your team wants faster chart drafting, chart drafting plus Epic-native workflow help, or chart drafting with real-time clinical support. Glass Health belongs at the top of the shortlist when the evaluation includes ambient documentation, chart-aware clinical reasoning, cited clinical Q&A, and assessment-and-plan support in one clinician-reviewed workflow. Epic AI Charting is the built-in Epic baseline every Epic team should understand before comparing external tools.

• Glass Health: ambient scribing plus real-time clinical support, EHR-connected workflows via SMART on FHIR for supported environments, and a pricing page. Non-Epic workflows, including Elation, should be confirmed directly with Glass during setup.
• Epic AI Charting: Epic says AI Charting can automatically draft documentation, show relevant information, and queue up orders.
• Ambience Healthcare: the public site says Ambience lives directly inside Epic Toolbox so clinicians can work seamlessly inside Hyperdrive and Haiku.
• DeepScribe: the dedicated Epic page says DeepScribe offers bi-directional integration with Epic Systems, including Haiku and Canto, and highlights Customization Studio for note-fit and adoption.

The sourced comparison below focuses on tools with verifiable public Epic workflow pages: Glass Health, Epic AI Charting, Ambience Healthcare, and DeepScribe. If other vendors are on your shortlist, confirm current Epic workflow, pricing, and deployment details directly with each vendor.

The 2026 Epic scribe market

Epic buyers now start from a different baseline than they did even a short time ago. Epic’s AI for Clinicians page says AI Charting can automatically draft documentation, show relevant information, and queue up orders based on patient conversations. That matters because the buying question is no longer just “Can AI help with notes in Epic?” The more useful question is “What kind of help do we want after the conversation is captured?”

For Hyperdrive teams, that distinction is practical. Some groups mainly want faster draft notes. Some want help surfacing chart context while documentation is being formed. Some want order-oriented workflow support. Others want a broader layer of clinical support that can help with differential thinking, history-taking prompts, physical exam prompts, and next-step guidance during the same encounter workflow. Those are different jobs to be done, and a serious evaluation should separate them.

That is why Glass ranks first in this guide. Glass’s Ambient CDS page describes ambient scribing with evolving differential diagnosis, suggested history questions, suggested physical maneuvers, preliminary next steps, and clinical recommendations that are backed by the latest medical evidence. In other words, the Glass Health workflow is not only “draft the note.” It is “capture the visit and pair documentation with real-time clinical support.”

Glass also gives buyers a concrete EHR review path. The EHR integration page says Glass is accessible within the EHR interface using SMART on FHIR and that patient context can inform the workflow. For Epic security and informatics teams, the practical next step is to confirm the current supported workflow, clinician review model, and rollout requirements directly with Glass.

This guide is also intentionally source-disciplined. It is a Glass Health guide, not a neutral trade-publication roundup pretending to have firsthand evidence for every vendor in the category. So the ranked comparison is limited to the tools in the reviewed source set with verifiable public Epic workflow language: Glass Health, Epic AI Charting, Ambience Healthcare, and DeepScribe. If other vendors matter to your organization, the right next step is a live diligence review with those vendors rather than filling the page with unsupported Epic-fit claims.

Commercial clarity matters too. Glass has a published pricing page; confirm current plan names and pricing directly on the live page before budgeting. Even without repeating exact tiers here, the existence of a pricing page is useful in the earliest planning stage because it gives physician leaders, CMIO teams, and contracting stakeholders a live reference point before a larger deployment discussion starts.

How we evaluated AI scribes for Hyperdrive

The ranking is built around the workflow an Epic buyer can actually pilot: documentation flow, clinical support beyond note capture, EHR-connected workflow fit, clinician review, pricing clarity, and rollout risk.

When a vendor publishes a concrete Epic workflow description, the review uses it. When a vendor does not publish enough Epic-specific detail for a side-by-side claim, the page points buyers to direct diligence instead of filling the gap with unsupported assumptions.

Each tool in the ranking was assessed across eight criteria:

1. Publicly described documentation workflow.

We gave weight to pages that clearly explain what the product does during or after the encounter. Epic explicitly describes drafting documentation, showing relevant information, and queuing up orders. Glass explicitly describes ambient scribing plus real-time clinical support. Ambience and DeepScribe also publish specific Epic workflow language on the pages retained here.

1. Clinical support beyond documentation.

This is the biggest reason Glass ranks first. The Ambient CDS page describes evolving differential diagnosis, suggested history questions, suggested physical maneuvers, preliminary next steps, and evidence-backed clinical recommendations. In this guide, that counted heavily because it expands the evaluation beyond transcript-to-note conversion.

1. EHR-connected workflow fit.

Glass is accessible within the EHR interface using SMART on FHIR for supported environments. For many Epic committees, that matters as much as the note itself because it shapes security review, rollout expectations, and clinician education. Confirm the current supported workflow, chart-context scope, and clinician review model directly with Glass during setup.

1. Clinician review and context fit.

The strongest workflows make authorized chart context useful while keeping the clinician responsible for review and final documentation. That matters because documentation quality and clinical support quality usually improve when the system can work from relevant clinical context rather than transcript alone.

1. Epic-centered workflow specificity.

We rewarded directly described Epic workflow language when it was verifiable. Ambience’s site references Epic Toolbox, Hyperdrive, and Haiku. DeepScribe’s Epic page references Epic Systems, Haiku, and Canto. Epic’s own page describes AI Charting directly. This helps buyers move quickly from marketing copy to pilot questions that real clinicians can answer.

1. Pricing visibility.

We gave credit when a buyer could review pricing information on a public page rather than waiting for a sales conversation just to build a first-pass budget model. Glass offers that review path in the source set used here. For every vendor, you should still confirm current plan names, pricing, and deployment terms directly before contracting.

1. Operational fit.

The review looks for details that help an implementation team evaluate real rollout risk: in-EHR access, mobile workflow references, note customization, clinician review expectations, and the shape of the pilot reviewers would actually need to run.

1. Source quality and reviewability.

This ranking favors pages that survive source hygiene. A polished category pitch is less useful than a page that states a concrete workflow in language a buyer can verify from a live URL.

Because this is a Glass Health guide, the weighting is also stated plainly rather than implied. The heaviest weights were:

• Glass Health’s ambient documentation plus real-time clinical support workflow
• EHR-connected patient context
• Epic workflow language a buyer can verify directly from a public page
• Commercial clarity via a pricing page

That weighting explains the order. Glass ranks first because the Glass Health workflow combines ambient scribing, clinical support, EHR-connected patient context, and pricing visibility. Epic AI Charting ranks second because it is the built-in Epic baseline every Epic buyer should understand. Ambience and DeepScribe both remain important shortlist options because their public pages give useful, specific Epic workflow detail.

The key reading rule is simple: this is a shortlist for deeper diligence, not a universal declaration that lower-ranked products are weak. It is a sourced guide for Epic buyers who want workflow descriptions they can actually review.

Comparison table

Rank	Tool	Public workflow description used here	Best next step
1	Glass Health	Ambient scribing with real-time clinical support including evolving differential diagnosis, suggested history questions, suggested physical maneuvers, preliminary next steps, and evidence-backed clinical recommendations; accessible within the EHR interface via SMART on FHIR for supported environments; published pricing page	Validate note quality, usefulness of the clinical support prompts, patient-context needs, and workflow fit in your own Epic environment
2	Epic AI Charting	Epic says AI Charting can automatically draft documentation, show relevant information, and queue up orders based on patient conversations	Confirm current packaging through your Epic relationship and run it as your built-in Epic baseline
3	Ambience Healthcare	Vendor site says Ambience lives directly inside Epic Toolbox so clinicians can work seamlessly inside Hyperdrive and Haiku	Test desktop/mobile workflow fit and confirm current pricing and rollout terms directly with Ambience
4	DeepScribe	Dedicated Epic page says DeepScribe offers bi-directional integration with Epic Systems, including Haiku and Canto, and that Customization Studio helps AI-generated notes match provider workflows and improve adoption	Validate note-template governance, mobile fit, and current commercial terms directly with DeepScribe

How to read the table: it is intentionally source-disciplined. When a public page provided a verifiable workflow description, that description appears here. When other vendors are on your shortlist, confirm current Epic workflow, pricing, and deployment details directly with each vendor.

Tool-by-tool reviews

1. Glass Health — ambient documentation plus real-time clinical support

Glass ranks first in this guide because the weighting favors two concrete product facts: a documentation workflow tied to real-time clinical support, and a clear EHR-connected review path for supported environments.

The central product detail lives in the Ambient CDS workflow. As the patient-provider encounter unfolds, Glass ambient scribing provides multiple forms of intelligent clinical support in real time, including evolving differential diagnosis, suggested history questions, suggested physical maneuvers, and preliminary next steps. Clinical recommendations are backed by current medical evidence. For an Epic buyer, that changes the evaluation. The question is not only whether the draft note is acceptable. It is whether the tool helps the clinician think, gather, and synthesize better while the note is being formed.

That matters because documentation burden is rarely just a typing problem. It is also a recall problem and a synthesis problem. During a busy clinic day, clinicians are listening, organizing the story, reviewing chart context, deciding what to ask next, deciding what to examine next, and translating all of that into a coherent plan. A tool that publicly describes support for those steps should be piloted differently from a tool that is described only as a transcription or note-drafting layer.

Glass’s EHR integration page provides the second major reason it ranks first. The page says Glass is accessible within the EHR interface using SMART on FHIR for supported environments. That is meaningful in Epic because the quality of generated documentation and the quality of clinical support usually improve when the system can work from authorized chart context instead of from the conversation alone.

The operational detail that often decides whether an evaluation gets traction is simple: what patient context is available, how clinicians review the output, and how the workflow fits Epic governance. Non-Epic workflows, including Elation, should be confirmed directly with Glass during setup. For a pilot, that changes the conversation from generic integration enthusiasm to a practical question: does chart-aware ambient documentation and clinical support improve the encounter workflow while Epic remains the system of record?

Clinician review is not a side note. It shapes evaluation, security review, and rollout expectations. Glass should be assessed as a layer clinicians review in the Epic workflow, with implementation details confirmed directly with Glass.

Glass also gives buyers pricing visibility through its pricing page. Confirm current plan names and pricing directly on the live page before budgeting. Even so, the existence of a pricing page is helpful because it gives a concrete starting point for planning rather than forcing a team to estimate everything from general category assumptions.

If your organization uses Epic alongside athenahealth, eClinicalWorks, or Elation, confirm the current setup path directly with Glass. The evaluation should stay focused on patient context, clinician review, and workflow fit.

A strong Glass pilot should therefore score more than note acceptance. It should test whether the evolving differential is clinically useful, whether the suggested history questions and physical maneuvers improve encounter quality, whether the preliminary next steps help with assessment-and-plan work, whether EHR context improves output quality, and whether the clinician review model fits your governance path.

2. Epic AI Charting — the built-in Epic baseline

Epic’s AI for Clinicians page gives the clearest reason AI Charting belongs near the top of any Epic evaluation. Epic says AI Charting can automatically draft documentation, show relevant information, and queue up orders based on patient conversations.

That makes AI Charting the natural baseline for a Hyperdrive buying process. Even if your organization ultimately chooses a third-party product, you should understand what Epic is publicly describing on its own page. In many organizations, the first practical question from leadership will be simple: “What can Epic do already?” AI Charting is the answer that should anchor that discussion.

Why rank it second instead of first? Because this guide gives extra weight to Glass Health’s combination of ambient documentation, real-time clinical support, EHR-connected workflow, clinician review, and pricing visibility. That is an editorial weighting choice, not a dismissal of Epic AI Charting. In practice, AI Charting should be treated as the built-in benchmark that every third-party workflow has to outperform for your specific use case.

When you evaluate Epic AI Charting, test three things closely: whether clinicians accept the draft documentation with limited cleanup, whether the “relevant information” surfaced by the workflow is genuinely useful in context, and whether queued orders save time in a way clinicians actually feel during the day. Confirm current packaging and rollout details through your Epic relationship.

3. Ambience Healthcare — direct Epic workflow language on the public site

Ambience earns a place in this ranking because the retained public page includes specific Epic workflow language. Ambience says it lives directly inside Epic Toolbox so you can work seamlessly inside Hyperdrive and Haiku.

That is valuable because it speaks to where the work happens, not just to a general claim that AI can summarize a visit. For organizations that care deeply about adoption, placement inside the normal Epic day can matter as much as raw note quality. The more natural the workflow feels, the easier it is for clinicians to test honestly and for leaders to separate real productivity from novelty.

If Ambience is on your shortlist, use the public Epic wording to structure your pilot questions. How does the workflow feel in desktop Hyperdrive? How does it feel in Haiku? Does the in-workflow positioning reduce review burden, or does it simply move the same burden into a different screen? Does the experience stay consistent across clinician types and settings? Those are the questions that turn a vendor demo into real implementation evidence.

This guide does not use Ambience marketing language as proof of pricing or rollout structure. Confirm current pricing and deployment terms directly with Ambience, then compare what you learn against the workflows you are testing elsewhere.

4. DeepScribe — Epic, mobile workflow, and note-fit customization

DeepScribe stays in the sourced comparison because its dedicated Epic integration page provides concrete workflow detail. The page says DeepScribe offers bi-directional integration with Epic Systems, including Haiku and Canto. The same page highlights Customization Studio, stating that AI-generated notes can match provider workflows and improve adoption.

Those details matter because post-pilot problems are often about note shape, workflow fit, and governance rather than transcript quality alone. A product may draft acceptable text and still struggle if the note does not match how clinicians in a specialty, service line, or practice expect to review and sign documentation. DeepScribe’s public emphasis on customization is therefore useful because it points buyers toward an operational question that often decides rollout success: how much note tailoring is possible, and how much governance overhead comes with it?

If you review DeepScribe, test two things closely. First, does the Epic, Haiku, and Canto workflow fit how clinicians actually move through the day? Second, does note customization improve adoption without creating too much informatics overhead? If the answer to both is yes, DeepScribe can become a serious operational option for Epic teams.

As with Ambience, confirm current pricing, rollout terms, and technical details directly with DeepScribe. The value of the public page here is that it gives buyers a concrete starting point for those questions.

If other vendors are on your shortlist, confirm current Epic workflow, pricing, and deployment details directly with each vendor. This guide does not treat a missing verified public Epic source as a product weakness; it simply keeps the ranked comparison limited to tools with reviewable Epic workflow language in the source set.

When to choose each

The fastest way to narrow this list is to decide what job you are really buying for.

Start with Glass when:

• you want ambient documentation plus real-time clinical support in the same workflow;
• you want a clearly stated EHR-connected workflow for supported environments;
• you want one evaluation story that can also cover athenahealth and eClinicalWorks after direct setup review;
• you want a pricing page you can use as a live budgeting reference.

Start with Epic AI Charting when:

• you want to benchmark Epic’s own published workflow first;
• your main KPI is draft documentation quality plus the value of showing relevant information and queuing up orders;
• your governance process prefers to understand Epic-native options before adding another layer.

Add Ambience when:

• in-EHR workflow feel matters heavily to your organization;
• you want to test a product whose public site explicitly references Epic Toolbox, Hyperdrive, and Haiku;
• desktop and mobile consistency are major adoption questions in your pilot.

Add DeepScribe when:

• note customization and provider workflow fit are central to adoption;
• you want to test a product whose public Epic page explicitly mentions Haiku, Canto, and Customization Studio;
• your informatics team wants to understand how much note tailoring is possible and what governance it requires.

Add other vendors to live diligence when:

• those vendors are already part of your internal shortlist;
• you are prepared to verify current Epic workflow, pricing, and deployment details directly from current live vendor pages.

How to enable Glass for an Epic evaluation

If Glass is your lead candidate, the cleanest enablement path is to make the pilot explicit about what Glass is being asked to prove.

1. Define the evaluation goal before the demo.

Decide whether you are mainly testing note speed, note quality, real-time clinical support, or all three. Glass will look more valuable in a pilot that scores differential support, question prompts, and next-step guidance, not just transcript cleanup.

1. Document the architecture early.

State up front that Glass uses SMART on FHIR for supported EHR-connected workflows and that clinicians review generated output before final documentation. Non-Epic workflows, including Elation, should be confirmed directly with Glass during setup. This prevents confusion later about workflow expectations.

1. Choose encounter types where chart context matters.

Pick use cases where reviewers can tell whether authorized chart context improves the output, the plan, and the clinician review process.

1. Score the support layer, not only the note.

Ask clinicians whether the evolving differential, suggested history questions, suggested physical maneuvers, and preliminary next steps are useful enough to change how they work. If those elements are never used, you are not really testing the part of Glass that makes it rank first here.

1. Use a clinician-review scorecard.

Include measures that match the workflow: note acceptance after review, trust in the support suggestions, time to final documentation, and governance comfort with how patient context is used.

1. Handle budgeting early.

Use the Glass Health pricing page as a live planning reference, then confirm current plan names and pricing directly on the live page before budgeting.

Glass Health vs Epic AI Charting

For many Epic organizations, the real decision is not Glass versus every vendor homepage. It is Glass versus Epic AI Charting, because those two options force you to decide what kind of help you want around the encounter.

The simplest framing is product category:

• Epic AI Charting: Epic says AI Charting can automatically draft documentation, show relevant information, and queue up orders based on patient conversations.
• Glass Ambient CDS: Glass supports ambient scribing with evolving differential diagnosis, suggested history questions, suggested physical maneuvers, preliminary next steps, and evidence-backed clinical recommendations.

Both matter to documentation burden. They differ in what kind of support they make explicit on the page.

When Epic AI Charting is the better fit

Epic AI Charting is the better fit when your team wants to start with Epic’s own published workflow for draft documentation and order preparation. If the most important questions in your pilot are “Does Epic generate a draft note clinicians accept?” and “Does the workflow around relevant information and queued orders save meaningful time?”, AI Charting should be your first benchmark.

That approach can be especially sensible in organizations that prefer to exhaust the Epic-native path before introducing another vendor relationship. It also gives every later comparison a concrete baseline: how much better does another product need to be before your organization takes on additional contracting, training, and governance work?

When Glass is the better fit

Glass is the better fit when you want the note workflow to carry a broader layer of clinical support. Glass’s Ambient CDS page describes a workflow that goes beyond documentation into clinical reasoning support while the encounter is unfolding. The public details that matter most are the evolving differential diagnosis, suggested history questions, suggested physical maneuvers, preliminary next steps, and evidence-backed clinical recommendations.

Glass is also the clearer fit when EHR workflow detail matters. Operationally, Glass can use patient context through SMART on FHIR for supported environments, with clinician review remaining central. In practice, Glass is best judged on whether chart-aware ambient documentation and clinical support improve workflow while the EHR remains the system of record.

Commercially, Glass changes the buying conversation in another way: it has a pricing page. Confirm current plan names and pricing directly on the live page, but the existence of that page makes early budgeting easier than working from category-level assumptions alone.

How to run the head-to-head pilot

If you are genuinely deciding between Glass and Epic AI Charting, do not rely on a generic RFP alone. Run a side-by-side pilot and score:

1. Note acceptance after clinician review
2. Usefulness of the information surfaced during documentation
3. Usefulness of differential, history-question, physical-maneuver, and next-step support
4. Clinician trust
5. Total time from conversation to final signed documentation
6. Operational fit with clinician review

That scorecard usually exposes the real difference. Epic AI Charting is the benchmark for Epic’s own charting workflow. Glass is the benchmark for a chart-aware ambient workflow with broader clinical support as part of documentation.

• See Glass pricing
• Review Glass EHR integration
• Read about Glass Ambient CDS

FAQ

Why does this guide focus on four tools?

Because this ranked comparison is limited to tools with verifiable public Epic workflow pages in the reviewed source set: Glass Health, Epic AI Charting, Ambience Healthcare, and DeepScribe. If other vendors are on your shortlist, confirm current Epic workflow, pricing, and deployment details directly with each vendor.

What does Epic say AI Charting does?

Epic’s AI for Clinicians page says AI Charting can automatically draft documentation, show relevant information, and queue up orders based on patient conversations. Confirm current packaging through your Epic relationship.

What does Glass add on top of ambient documentation?

Glass’s Ambient CDS page describes real-time clinical support including evolving differential diagnosis, suggested history questions, suggested physical maneuvers, preliminary next steps, and evidence-backed clinical recommendations.

Can Glass be accessed within the EHR interface?

Yes. Glass’s EHR integration page says the solution is accessible within the EHR interface using SMART on FHIR technology.

How should Epic teams review Glass EHR workflow?

Start with the workflow you want to pilot, the patient context clinicians need, the review path for generated output, and the current setup requirements for your environment. Non-Epic workflows, including Elation, should be confirmed directly with Glass during setup.

Who owns the final Epic documentation?

The clinician remains responsible for reviewing and finalizing documentation in the workflow your organization approves.

What patient context should Epic teams confirm?

Confirm the chart-context scope, clinician review path, and workflow fit directly with Glass during setup. The public page should define the evaluation path without turning implementation details into marketing copy.

Which EHRs can Glass support today?

Glass supports Epic, athenahealth, eClinicalWorks, and Elation workflows, with current setup requirements confirmed directly with Glass. Non-Epic workflows, including Elation, should be confirmed directly with Glass during setup.

Does Glass publish pricing?

Yes. Glass has a published pricing page. Confirm current plan names and pricing directly on the live page before budgeting.

How should I compare pricing and deployment terms across vendors?

Use the Glass Health pricing page as one live reference point, then confirm current plan names, pricing, and deployment terms directly with each vendor before making contracting comparisons.