Relatient
Engagement suite with scheduling & outreach
7.2
Overall Score
7.2
Overall Score
RELATIENT
Patient engagement · Scheduling & outreach suite
Relatient
Strong fit
- Ambulatory groups that want reminders, self-scheduling, and messaging in one engagement layer
- Access teams measuring no-show reduction and online booking adoption
- Organizations that already run a separate intake/payments tool and need outreach beside it
Weak fit
- Buyers who primarily need intake-to-payment capture in one stack (see Phreesia)
- Solo practices that only need native EHR text reminders
- Health systems shopping for a full telehealth EHR rather than engagement messaging
Bottom line
Relatient earns a Recommend for ambulatory access teams that live on reminders, self-scheduling, and two-way outreach. Outcomes look credible on no-show and booking metrics when EHR schedule sync is clean. Product breadth is wider than a pure comms tool and narrower than Phreesia's intake-plus-pay story. Implementation still depends on how carefully you map locations and provider templates. Pricing is multi-module; model it at your visit volume before you treat the pitch deck as the quote.
Score breakdown
7.5
Filling appointments
7.3
Patient messaging
6.9
Syncing with the schedule
6.7
Knowing what you will pay
35% Customer outcomes
30% Product
20% Implementation
15% Pricing clarity
Score Analysis
- Filling appointments. Self-scheduling and reminder loops are what most ambulatory groups hire Relatient for, and buyer conversations usually land on fill rate and no-show changes. Specialty templates and multi-location rules still need local tuning, so we kept headroom.
- Patient messaging. Two-way messaging and campaign tools cover the engagement jobs most practices actually buy. Depth drops when buyers expect a full CRM or care-management protocol engine.
- Syncing with the schedule. Write-back and live slot availability matter more than the patient-facing screens. Implementations stall when schedule templates and provider calendars are messy going in.
- Knowing what you will pay. Module lists and per-location packaging are knowable, but they are rarely simple. Ask for total cost at your message and booking volume, not a logo-slide ROI claim.
Relatient vs Competitors
Phreesia
Intake + payments with ambulatory depth
8.2
Overall Score
Solutionreach
Comms-led engagement; lighter intake/pay
6.8
Overall Score
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Subscription tied to locations, providers, or message volume. |
| What usually drives cost | Self-scheduling, waitlist, and outreach modules when those sit outside the base quote. |
| What to ask in diligence | Compare against no-show cost at your specialty mix, and clarify whether intake/payments are in scope or assumed elsewhere. |
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.