Clinical systems · Cloud ambulatory EHR / PM / RCM
RXNT
RXNT is a cloud ambulatory suite covering EHR, e-prescribing, practice management, and revenue cycle tools for independent and multi-specialty practices. It is not a hospital inpatient EHR.
Strong fit
- Independent and multi-specialty ambulatory practices that want one cloud suite for EHR, e-prescribing, practice management, and billing
- Groups that care about integrated eRx history and claims in the same vendor stack
- Buyers comparing mid-market ambulatory EHR peers rather than Epic or Oracle Health hospital platforms
Weak fit
- Health systems standardizing on Epic or Oracle Health as the system of record
- Allergy or ENT specialty shops that need a deeply vertical EHR such as ModuleMD or WRS Health first
- Practices that only need a lightweight scheduling and telehealth layer without full EHR replacement
Bottom line
RXNT earns a Recommend and sits at the top of our mid-market ambulatory EHR board alongside Canvas. The Annapolis company, founded in 1999 by CEO Randy Boldyga, sells an integrated cloud EHR, e-prescribing, practice management, and RCM suite used by tens of thousands of clinicians. Third-party revenue markers cluster near roughly $54-55M with about 140 employees, inside the prefer-to-ceiling band and under the hard cap. Outcomes look strongest when the practice will consolidate charting, eRx, and billing on one stack and has an owner for data conversion. Product breadth is competitive with CharmHealth and DrChrono on ambulatory PM plus clinicals; specialty depth trails WRS Health for ENT-heavy workflows. Score leads CharmHealth and DrChrono on this board and matches Canvas overall while remaining a mid-market independent rather than a hospital EHR.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
RXNT is an Annapolis ambulatory software company founded in 1999 by Randy Boldyga. The suite covers cloud EHR, electronic prescribing, practice management, patient portal, and revenue cycle tools for independent practices.
It is mid-market ambulatory clinical and billing software, not a hospital EHR and not a single-specialty allergy platform. Compare CharmHealth and DrChrono for similar cloud ambulatory scopes, WRS Health when specialty-first ENT or similar workflows dominate, and Canvas or Elation when API-first primary care architecture is the buying filter.
Score reflects integrated eRx and PM breadth with steady mid-market scale markers.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Canvas Medical | 7.5 | 7.2 |
| RXNT | 7.5 | 7.3 |
| Elation Health | 7.4 | 7.0 |
| WRS Health | 7.2 | 7.0 |
| Azalea Health | 6.9 | 6.8 |
| PrognoCIS | 6.9 | 6.7 |
| CharmHealth | 6.8 | 6.7 |
| DrChrono | 6.7 | 6.6 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Cloud subscription for EHR, PM, eRx, and RCM modules; quote-based by provider count and modules. |
| What usually drives cost | Provider seats, RCM or billing services, eRx volume, patient portal, and implementation scope. |
| What to ask in diligence | Per-provider monthly all-in cost including billing module and data migration. |
| Published pricing | Marketing pages emphasize integrated suites; detailed per-provider rates are typically quote-based on rxnt.com. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get RXNT to function | |
| Physician champion for chart templates | EHR projects fail without clinical ownership. |
| Clean patient demographics and schedule export | Conversion quality sets go-live pain. |
| Billing lead for claims rules | PM without RCM ownership stalls cash. |
| eRx identity proofing plan | Prescribing goes live only after identity steps. |
| Training time blocked on the schedule | Go-live without training creates shadow charts. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Convert active patients before historical deep archive | Speed matters more than perfect history. |
| Parallel claims for two cycles | Reduce cash surprises. |
| Retire the legacy EHR login after cutover | Dual systems prolong risk. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| Must stay on Epic inpatient as only chart | |
| No time for any data conversion | |
| Cash-pay telehealth only with no PM need | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Discovery and data map | 2-4 weeks |
| 2 | Build and train | 4-8 weeks |
| 3 | Go-live hypercare | 2-4 weeks |
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.