Provider credentialing & network · Provider data / credentialing API
CertifyOS
CertifyOS provides API-first provider data infrastructure for credentialing, licensing, enrollment, and network monitoring, mainly for health plans and digital health companies.
Strong fit
- Health plans and digital health companies that want credentialing, licensing, and provider list monitoring they can run through an API
- Network teams that track days to onboard providers and how accurate provider data is against original sources
- Buyers moving credentials verification, enrollment, and ongoing monitoring onto one provider data system
Weak fit
- A solo clinic that only needs a shared folder of credentials for a few physicians
- Buyers looking for an EHR or a staffing marketplace
- Organizations that will not pay for the checks against original sources that the product relies on
Bottom line
CertifyOS is worth using for health plans and digital health companies that want one source of provider data for credentialing, licensing, enrollment, and monitoring through an API. It suits teams with a network operations owner.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
CertifyOS, also called Certify, is a New York provider data company led by founder and CEO Anshul Rathi. Its platform automates credentialing, licensing, enrollment, and network monitoring through an API, using data from original sources. Health plans and digital health companies use it as a full provider data system, which goes well beyond a place to store individual physicians' credentials. In 2025 it raised a $40 million Series B.
Customers see shorter onboarding and cleaner provider lists when plans treat CertifyOS as the official record for licenses and enrollments. Getting there takes an owner in network operations and signed data use agreements.
Among credentialing tools we review, CertifyOS ties Medallion for the highest overall score and scores above Andros and Assured. Medallion fits growing groups that want enrollment software, and Andros fits when credentials verification services are the main need. Assured fits buyers interested in AI agents for credentialing, and Modio fits when a shared credential store for hospitals and locum providers is enough.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| MD-Staff | 7.8 | 7.5 |
| Medallion | 7.7 | 7.3 |
| CertifyOS | 7.7 | 7.4 |
| Andros | 7.6 | 7.3 |
| Assured | 7.4 | 7.2 |
| Credentially | 7.2 | 7.0 |
| Verifiable | 7.1 | 6.9 |
| Madaket Health | 7.0 | 6.8 |
| Incredable | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| Modio Health | 6.8 | 6.8 |
| ProviderTrust | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| Medversant | 6.7 | 6.4 |
| Verisys | 6.7 | 6.9 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | A provider data and credentialing platform for health plans and digital health companies, with prices quoted for each customer. |
| What usually drives cost | The number of providers, which modules you use (credentialing, enrollment, monitoring, API), and how thorough the checks are. |
| What to ask before you buy | The yearly cost for your number of active providers, with written service levels for source checks and monitoring. |
| Published pricing | Prices are quoted for each customer, based on the number of providers, and are not listed on the website. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get CertifyOS to function | |
| A named credentialing or network operations lead | Without a lead who owns the work, incomplete files and data gaps go unresolved. |
| Current numbers for days to onboard and how many applications have errors | Without a baseline, there is no way to show that onboarding got faster or more accurate. |
| A written list of where license, CAQH, and payer portal data comes from | Missing sources send staff back to chasing documents by hand. |
| A staffing plan for incomplete applications after launch | Incomplete files that no one works on never get enrolled. |
| NCQA or payer audit rules written down | Unexpected audit rules can undo the time saved. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Track the typical days until a provider is in network every week for 90 days | Days until a provider is in network show whether onboarding is getting faster. |
| Start with one specialty or line of business | One specialty or line of business gives a clear result before a wider rollout. |
| Turn off duplicate tracking spreadsheets after one month running both | Keeping the old spreadsheets past a month means staff keep entering the same data twice. |
| Review stuck applications in a regular short meeting | A short regular review keeps stalled applications from going unnoticed. |
| Send growth leaders a monthly network operations summary | Enrollment delays no one reports hold up payments. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| No one will own incomplete credentialing files. | |
| You will not do the source checks or payer enrollment work it needs. | |
| You expect a credentialing tool to replace your EHR. | |
| Leaders will not measure how long onboarding takes. | |
| Your legal team blocks the data use agreements it needs. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Plan and measure the starting point | 2-4 weeks. Agree on measures, data sources, and which lines of business are covered. |
| 2 | Set up | 4-12 weeks. Set up checks, workflows, and connections. |
| 3 | Pilot | 4-8 weeks. Run one specialty or region and audit a sample of files. |
| 4 | Expand | 2-4 months. Add lines of business and stop using side trackers. |
Leadership
Recent news
- September 2026: CertifyOS launched a National Shared Credentialing Program with initial commitments from UnitedHealthcare, Cigna Healthcare, and Centene, aiming to cut duplicate provider credentialing work.
- June 2025: CertifyOS raised a $40 million Series B led by Transformation Capital, with General Catalyst, Upfront Ventures, and SemperVirens participating.
Methodology
| Weight | Factor | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Customer outcomes | Whether buyers get measurable operational or clinical-workflow results after go-live |
| 30% | Product | Capability depth, reliability, and fit for the job the category buys |
| 20% | Implementation | How hard it is to stand up, integrate, train, and stabilize |
| 15% | Pricing clarity | Whether a buyer can model total cost without a mystery quote |
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Highly recommend | Strong outcomes and product with manageable caveats |
| Recommend | Solid fit for the right buyer; know the tradeoffs |
| Conditional | Only with a specific use case or heavy caveats |
| Not recommended | Avoid for most buyers in this category |
Read our full methodology for how we weight scores and assign recommend labels.