Clinical systems · Communication network & QHIN
Kno2
Kno2 is a healthcare communication network and designated QHIN that lets software vendors and providers exchange records through one connection to fax, Direct messaging, Carequality, and TEFCA.
Strong fit
- Post-acute, behavioral health, and therapy software vendors that need one connection to national networks
- Providers that still trade records by fax and Direct messaging and want them in one place
- Technology vendors that need TEFCA access through a designated QHIN
Weak fit
- Teams that want a deduplicated longitudinal record with analytics on top
- Health systems that only need internal HL7 interfaces
- Buyers who need a published price list
Bottom line
Kno2 is a Boise, Idaho company that runs a communication network for patient records. Software vendors and providers use one connection to send and receive records through Carequality, Direct secure messaging, cloud fax, HL7, FHIR, and TEFCA, where Kno2 is a designated QHIN. It is strongest in post-acute and behavioral health, where many facilities still exchange records by fax.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Kno2 is based in Boise, Idaho, and Jon Elwell, on its board since 2013, is chief executive. Its Communication API and Kno2fy portal give customers one connection to Carequality, Direct messaging, cloud fax, health information exchanges, and referral networks. Kno2 says about 80 percent of the technology vendors that serve post-acute care are integrated with its network. It was designated a Qualified Health Information Network under TEFCA in February 2024, and in October 2025 it formed an alliance with Redox.
In 2021 the company raised a $15 million round backed by Providence. The product is strongest where facilities still exchange records by fax and need those messages in the same place as network queries.
Compare Redox when the main job is connecting an application to health system EHRs, Health Gorilla when the team wants national record queries delivered as FHIR data, and Metriport when developers want an open-source API.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Particle Health | 7.4 | 7.0 |
| Kno2 | 7.3 | 7.3 |
| Zus Health | 7.2 | 7.0 |
| Metriport | 7.2 | 7.2 |
| Redox | 7.1 | 6.8 |
| Health Gorilla | 6.9 | 6.8 |
| 1upHealth | 6.7 | 6.5 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Subscription and transaction pricing for technology vendors and providers, quoted by Kno2. |
| What usually drives cost | Message and query volume, which channels are used (fax, Direct, Carequality, TEFCA), and the number of connected facilities. |
| What to ask in diligence | Monthly price at your volume, per-transaction fees by channel, and what partner or reseller terms apply. |
| Published pricing | No public list price. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Kno2 to function | |
| Channels in use listed | Fax, Direct, and network queries are set up differently. |
| Facility directory addresses | Messages need the right destination. |
| Integration owner at the vendor | The API has to be built into the product. |
| Consent and purpose rules | Network queries require a stated purpose. |
| Inbox owner at each site | Received records need someone to file them. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Move fax traffic first | It is the largest manual cost for most facilities. |
| Add network queries after messaging works | Staff learn one change at a time. |
| Report on records received per admission | Shows the network is filling gaps. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| Needs analytics platform | |
| No integration owner | |
| Only internal HL7 | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract and onboarding | 2-4 weeks |
| 2 | API or portal setup | 4-8 weeks |
| 3 | Facility rollout | 1-3 months |
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 actually 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.