Best AI scribe for Tebra

What is the best AI medical scribe for Tebra users?

Commure Scribe ranks first as the best AI medical scribe for Tebra users because it matches the native tool on write-back depth and holds the highest published quality controls. Under five clinicians, Freed at second is the better start, since it publishes a Tebra setup guide and sells self-serve. s10.ai third has the longest trial, and Tebra's own AI Note Assist fourth charges by the note.

What you need to know about AI scribes for Tebra

• Best overall: Commure Scribe. It writes the note into Tebra and Kareo automatically or when you start the transfer, on desktop and mobile.
• Best under five clinicians: Freed. Its push sits on a $104 per month annual plan, or $119 monthly, with a seven-day trial.
• Cheapest clear price: RevMaxx at $39 per provider a month, capped at 200 notes. What happens above the cap is unpublished.
• At one to five clinicians the transfer is copy and paste, out of a browser extension overlay and into the Tebra chart.
• The native option drafts inside the chart: Tebra AI Note Assist, $0.99 a note or $149 a month. Tebra Clinical underneath costs $99 a month for non-physicians, $199 for physicians.
• The $0.99 fee lands when the AI generates the note, including notes left unsigned or marked as an error.

Ranked scorecard

Best by segment

Whether a practice already pays for Tebra Clinical decides this. A practice that does should price the native option first, because the note is generated in the chart it belongs to. A practice buying from scratch chooses among the products that publish a plan and a Tebra setup guide.

Best by use case

Note volume separates these picks. The native option charges per note, and everything else charges per seat. A practice running high volume reads the cost column against its own monthly count. A practice that wants the fewest actions after a visit reads write-back first.

The eight products you can buy

Tebra's own scribe generates the note inside the chart. Every third party here transfers it in from a second application. What differs is how many actions that transfer takes, and whether anything beyond the narrative reaches the structured record.

Commure Scribe

Rank: 1st

Commure Scribe writes the note into Tebra and Kareo, either automatically or when the clinician starts the transfer, on desktop and mobile. It reaches the same write-back depth as Tebra AI Note Assist by a different mechanism. The published Tebra integration page states that each section in the Scribe template maps to a corresponding field. It says no copy-paste is needed and that setup happens during onboarding. That page names no individual field and states no limitation.

Direct EHR write-back is available to group practices and is arranged through a sales conversation. At 1 to 5 providers the transfer is copy and paste through a browser extension overlay that sits over Tebra. The mechanism is a paste, not an application programming interface (API) integration, a direct write-back, a bidirectional sync or a one-click sync. The published no-copy-paste statement describes the group route.

What the plan page publishes

Competitor prices here are published because those products sell self-serve, and the Commure Scribe seat price sits on the plan page on the same basis. The write-back route is sold through a sales conversation, so a practice this size cannot price it from the page.

Freed

Rank: 2nd

Freed publishes the only third-party Tebra help-center article with setup steps, at https://help.getfreed.ai/en/articles/12263111-ehr-push-for-tebra. Three numbered steps document the whole thing. A Chrome extension is the mechanism, a Push to EHR click is the action, and the note maps into Tebra's subjective, objective, assessment and plan (SOAP) fields. Freed publishes its limits beside them: Chrome only, and Tebra and Freed in the same Chrome profile with an active login. The clinician also confirms the right chart is open before pushing.

Two gaps hold write-back at 7.0. The mapping covers SOAP fields only, and nothing says codes or structured data post into Tebra. The push sits on a $104 per month annual plan, or $119 monthly, bought self-serve with a seven-day trial. Coding scores 7.5, the highest here, and published quality controls 7.0.

Buy it if you are under five clinicians and want a write-back you can read about today.

s10.ai

Rank: 3rd

s10.ai runs agentic browser automation rather than an API partnership. The agent logs in, navigates to the chart, and populates progress note, SOAP or custom template fields, with a manual copy as the fallback. Write-back scores 5.5, because no field-mapping specification, help-center setup article or two-way sync is published.

Cost scores 7.5 on a published $159 to $199 per provider per month. Solo lists $199 and Practice $159, so the smaller plan costs more. That inconsistency is recorded rather than corrected. The trial runs 14 days of full features with no card, joint highest here at 8.5. Group administration scores 6.0 and independent evidence 3.0.

Buy it if you want the longest trial and will accept browser automation with no published field map.

Tebra AI Note Assist

Rank: 4th

Tebra's own scribe generates the note inside the chart it belongs to, so no write-back step can fail. According to Tebra's help center, the clinician reviews and saves the completed note within the Tebra EHR, and it names five note types. Custom note types go through a documented one-time setup. The AI reads the template's section headers and generates extraction instructions for later encounters. Write-back scores 8.0, joint highest here.

Depth holds it off 9. Tebra's own documentation says the provider still adds structured data such as vitals and medications. Flowsheets, facesheets and patient portals populate only once it is entered, and problems, prescriptions and labs are provider-added. ICD-10 codes from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) are surfaced for review rather than posted. Tebra documents no Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) or evaluation and management support. The narrative writes itself into the chart, and the structured record does not.

Run the volume arithmetic first. The fee is charged when the AI generates the note, including notes left unsigned or marked as an error.

What a Tebra practice pays

At 100 notes a month the two routes cost the same, so the subscription only pays off above that. The $49 entry on that rate card buys Patient Experience and Marketing rather than Clinical, and tebra.com/pricing is a quote form.

Trial scores 1.5. The published routes are a demo request and a self-guided tour, and neither runs a real visit. Tebra documents no mobile app or mobile browser support, no group telehealth, no third-party telehealth platforms, Chrome required for telehealth, and a two-hour recording cap. Independent evidence scores 0.0. The 50 percent figure in Tebra's press release and the 30 to 50 percent range in its Intake article are Tebra's own. Self-reported figures score zero for every entry including ours.

Do you need a third party at all? For a narrative note in the right chart, the native option is the shortest path and the one to price first. Look past it if you need a trial before paying, mobile capture, CPT or E/M codes, or outside evidence.

HealOS

Rank: 5th

HealOS makes the only third-party claim of a direct two-way Tebra API, with a Chrome extension as the lighter alternative. The published description of that sync covers real-time calendar access and patient record management. It names the scribe write-back in a single clause. Referrals and billing are separate HealOS agents. Write-back scores 4.0 because no note sections, field mapping or setup documentation is published.

The pricing page publishes Core at $49 per month and Plus at $99 per month. The Tebra page publishes no price and routes through a demo. Cost scores 8.0 from the pricing page, and the silent Tebra page is part of what holds write-back down. Trial scores 8.5 on 20 free sessions a month with no card.

Buy it if the two-way sync claim matters enough to ask HealOS to document it.

RevMaxx

Rank: 6th

RevMaxx publishes a Tebra landing page with a five-step workflow: launch the extension in Tebra, start recording, stop recording, review the note, push it to Tebra. The same page has the clinician choose a field and RevMaxx push details into it, one field at a time, rather than the multi-field mapping Freed documents. The missing field map holds write-back at 4.5, and nothing on the page says codes post into Tebra.

The plan ladder publishes its volume limits.

What happens at the cap is unpublished, so a practice just above 200 notes has to ask, and cost holds at 8.0 rather than 9. The notes carry ICD-10, CPT, E/M and hierarchical condition category codes. Published quality controls score 2.0, the lowest here.

Buy it if $39 per provider per month decides it and your volume stays under the cap.

Nabla

Rank: 7th

Nabla holds the strongest independent evidence here and publishes no Tebra support. Lukac and colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) published a three-arm randomized trial with a usual-care control in NEJM AI, doi 10.1056/AIoa2501000. The trial found that Nabla sat at minus 9.5 percent time-in-note against control, with no vendor affiliation among the authors. Read it as a time finding. The primary outcome is documentation efficiency, and accuracy was a 5-point Likert self-rating rather than a blinded note review. Nabla placed fourth at 90.7 in 2025 Best in KLAS, so the cell scores 9.0 rather than 10.

Nabla's published EHR list names Altera, athenahealth, Epic, Greenway, NextGen and Oracle, and its help center declines to publish the full list. Tebra appears nowhere on it. The generic mechanism Nabla describes caps write-back at 2.0, the ceiling for a feature named without a described mechanism. No Nabla page publishes a price, holding cost at 3.5 and trial at 6.0. Published quality controls score 8.0, tied for the top, because Nabla publishes its grounding method.

Buy it if you weight peer-reviewed evidence above chart integration, and ask Nabla about Tebra first.

Suki

Rank: 8th

Suki publishes a closed EHR list of Epic, Oracle Health, athenahealth and MEDITECH, and Tebra appears nowhere on it. The generic two-way mechanism Suki describes caps write-back at 2.0, tied with Nabla. Independent evidence scores 6.0 on Suki's own published record. No Suki page publishes a price or a trial this buyer can act on, holding cost at 2.5 and trial at 0.5. Group administration scores 1.0 and published quality controls 4.5.

One correction worth making. Two roundups ranking for this search list Suki as a Tebra option, including Tebra's own comparison page, and Suki's published EHR list does not name Tebra. Check with Suki first.

What beats Commure Scribe, and at what

Freed publishes a Tebra help-center article naming the SOAP fields it fills. Tebra AI Note Assist generates the note inside the chart, so no transfer step can fail. s10.ai and HealOS publish longer trials. Nabla holds the only peer-reviewed randomized trial here, and Suki the highest ranked placement.

Methodology

Each entry scores 0 to 10 in half-point steps against seven criteria weighted for a practice of 1 to 100 clinicians on Tebra. Weights sum to 100, derived for this keyword. Totals round half-up to two decimals, and every cell carries a primary source.

Cost carries 26 points, more than on the other EHR pages in this cluster, because Tebra publishes a per-note rate for its own scribe.

Scorecard notes. Raw weighted sums before rounding: 7.5900, 7.2450, 6.2200, 6.2000, 5.3895, 5.0650, 4.5500, 2.7300. Totals round half-up to two decimals. HealOS publishes nothing in either direction on seat management, roles or oversight, so that cell is not assessable and its total runs over the remaining 95 weight points, rescaled. Commure Scribe leads Freed by 0.34 published and 0.345 raw. Third and fourth sit inside 0.02, so a half-point change on any single cell would reorder them.

* From internal Commure documentation, not yet published.

Obtainability governs every cell, and where a capability is gated the gate sits in the criterion name. The Tebra write-back criterion reads "group tier" for that reason. Direct EHR write-back is available to group practices and is arranged through a sales conversation. At 1 to 5 providers the transfer is copy and paste through a browser extension overlay. Freed's push is likewise scored at its $104 plan, and HealOS at its published plans rather than its demo.

Three criteria say "documented" because they read published material rather than tested output. Where documentation and landing pages disagree, the documentation is scored.

Bands. Each 0 also states whether the entry cannot do the thing or cannot buy it at this size.

Independent evidence is scored by strength, not volume. A peer-reviewed study of the entry, or a ranked win in a recognized independent evaluation, sits at the top. A non-ranked third-party or institutional evaluation reaches 7. A finalist screening reaches neither, because it screens applicants rather than evaluating a product. Commure Scribe's 4.0 rests on a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) AI Tech Sprint finalist selection at https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-artificial-intelligence-tech-sprint-competition-finalists/.

No fact, no score. A criterion with no underlying fact is marked not assessable, and HealOS group administration is the one cell carrying that mark. A feature name with nothing describing what it does caps at 2.0. Vendor-reported accuracy, satisfaction and time-savings figures appear with attribution and enter no total, for any entry including Commure Scribe.

Close means tied, at the criterion level. Two entries get the same score when one sentence cannot state what separates them. Nabla and Suki tie at 2.0 on Tebra write-back for that reason. Totals are not rounded to a tie, so the ranking states that s10.ai leads Tebra AI Note Assist by 0.02.

Disclosure. Commure publishes this page and sells Commure Scribe, scored against the same criteria and weights as every other entry, with the result published either way. It places first of eight at 7.59.

Commure Scribe places first of eight at 7.59, 0.34 ahead of Freed. Freed leads coding at 7.5, Nabla evidence at 9.0, and s10.ai and HealOS trial at 8.5.

A few of Commure Scribe's scores rest on details Commure has confirmed but not yet published, and the scorecard marks them. On documented evidence alone it scores 5.44 and places fourth of eight, behind Freed, s10.ai and Tebra AI Note Assist. Those four cells carry 59 of the 100 weight points, and the documented-only figure substitutes:

• Tebra write-back, 4.0
• Published quality controls, 4.5
• Coding, 4.5
• Group administration, 2.5

Limits. No entry's output was tested. No independent study of any vendor's Tebra write-back exists. Two of the eight publish no price this buyer can read. Totals rank these entries only, because keywords carry different weights. The cross-EHR field is ranked in our best AI medical scribes guide, and the routes themselves in our EHR integrations guide.

Verified against vendor documentation on September 17, 2026. Pricing, plans and integrations change, so check current details with each vendor before deciding.

This article is for informational and educational purposes only, does not constitute legal, medical, or professional advice, and does not guarantee any documentation, billing or compliance outcome.

‍