Particle Health vs Zus Health
Updated October 23, 2026
Care teams paid for outcomes see little of what happens to their patients at other hospitals and clinics, so pulling outside records has become core infrastructure for them. Particle Health and Zus Health both reach those records through national exchange networks, but Particle hands developers an API that returns a patient's history, while Zus keeps that data in a shared FHIR record and adds tools for risk adjustment and quality gaps. Teams with engineers who want raw records lean one way, and clinical groups who want the data ready inside their workflow lean the other.
Our analysts compared Particle Health and Zus Health on what each product delivers, buyer fit, risk and quality work, records results, and setup, using the HIR review of each company and each vendor's own site. In the following sections, we compare them in one table, describe the team each one suits, and note what Zus announced in August.
Particle Health vs Zus Health at a glance, October 2026
| What buyers weigh | Particle Health | Zus Health |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Contracts for network access and usage, set by how you run record lookups. | A subscription for larger buyers, quoted by Zus, with terms set by the patients covered and the data services used. |
| What drives cost | The number of records pulled, the environments you need, and services to launch your first uses. | Number of patients, which data sources are pulled, and whether risk adjustment and quality tools are added. |
| What you buy | An API that pulls a patient's records from national clinical data networks. | A shared FHIR patient record that gathers outside data and puts it in front of clinicians and apps. |
| Who it fits best | Digital health companies and mid-sized providers that need a patient's full history. | Groups paid for outcomes, and digital health teams that want to build on a shared record. |
| Risk and quality work | Feeds care and risk programs that stall without records from other providers. | Risk adjustment and quality gap tools can be added to the record. |
| Records results | Scores 7.6 for getting usable outside records. Higher score | Scores 7.1 for records and care-gap results. |
| Product depth | Scores 7.6 for its network and API product. | Scores 7.5 for its shared record platform. |
| Getting live | Scores 7.0 for standing up production use. | Scores 7.0 for getting the data flowing. |
| Time to full value | About 5 to 11 months | About 4 to 6 months |
| What you need first | A clear use that depends on records from outside providers. | Patient roster and identity data. |
| Deal-breaker | You only need a single direct EHR interface, which calls for a different kind of tool. | No clean patient roster. |
| Pricing clarity score | 7.2 Clearer pricing | 6.9 |
| HIR overall score | 7.4, Recommend. | 7.2, Recommend. |
| Best for | Digital health companies and mid-sized providers that need a patient's full history through a clinical data network. | Groups paid for outcomes that want outside records in front of clinicians before a visit. |
| Not a fit for | Groups that only need one EHR-to-EHR interface, the kind Redox builds. | Groups that only need a single HL7 connection between two systems. |
Which fits which buyer
Decide who will use the records first, engineers or clinicians.
Choose Particle Health if
- You are building a product that needs a patient's full history through an API.
- You have engineers to own identity matching and data quality.
- You need records from many providers for care or risk programs.
Choose Zus Health if
- You want outside records in front of clinicians before a visit.
- You would rather build your app on a shared FHIR record than run your own data pipeline.
- You work on risk adjustment and closing quality gaps.
Verdict
Particle Health scores slightly higher and fits digital health companies with engineers who want a patient's history through an API. Zus Health fits value-based groups that want outside data organized in a shared record with risk and quality tools.
Neither posts prices, so ask each for a quote at your expected patient count or lookup volume.
What Zus Health announced in August 2026
Zus Health: Zus Health announced on August 11, 2026 that it had been accepted as a Candidate QHIN under TEFCA, the federal framework for nationwide record exchange. It announced HITRUST r2 certification the same day.
Ask Zus how QHIN status would change the networks it can query for your patients.
Methodology
Each row comes from the HIR reviews of Particle Health and Zus Health, scored under the HIR method, and from each vendor's public pricing where it exists. Any published price for Particle Health or Zus Health was checked on that vendor's own site on October 23, 2026.
A green check marks a clear edge for Particle Health or Zus Health only where their review scores differ by at least 0.3 points or the two reviews show a plain difference. Rows with nothing published for either Particle Health or Zus Health are left out, and time to full value for each adds up the rollout stages in its review.
Sources
- HIR review of Particle Health and HIR review of Zus Health
- Particle Health home page
- Zus Health website
- Zus Health blog, Candidate QHIN and HITRUST r2 posts dated August 11, 2026