Clinical systems · Ambient documentation & voice assistant
Suki
Suki is an AI assistant that drafts clinical notes from the visit conversation and lets clinicians dictate, edit, and place orders by voice inside their electronic health record.
Strong fit
- Health systems and medical groups that want ambient notes written into Epic, Oracle Health, athenahealth, or MEDITECH
- Clinicians who also want voice dictation, orders, and patient instructions in the same assistant
- Health software companies that want to add ambient documentation to their own product through Suki's developer platform
Weak fit
- Solo clinicians who want to sign up for a free scribe today without talking to sales
- Behavioral health programs that need therapy notes reviewed for Medicaid compliance
- Organizations looking for a new EHR
Bottom line
Suki is a Redwood City, California company that makes an AI assistant for clinical documentation. Clinicians use it to turn the visit conversation into a note, edit the note by voice, and send orders and patient instructions into the electronic health record. Health systems choose it when they want one assistant that works across several EHRs and also handles dictation.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Suki was founded in 2017 by Punit Soni, who had led product teams at Google, Motorola, and Flipkart. Its assistant listens to the visit, drafts the note, and lets the clinician change it by voice before it is filed in the electronic health record. The company says the assistant works in more than 100 specialties on desktop, iOS, and Android. Suki also sells a developer platform so other health software companies can add the same ambient documentation to their products.
The company says more than 350 health systems use Suki. It raised a $70 million Series D in October 2024.
Compare Abridge when an Epic health system wants the most widely deployed enterprise option, Heidi Health when clinicians want to start on a free plan, and Nabla when an ambulatory group needs a lighter ambient tool.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Abridge | 8.4 | 7.8 |
| Freed | 8.0 | 7.6 |
| Suki | 7.8 | 7.6 |
| Heidi Health | 7.7 | 8.0 |
| Ambience | 7.6 | 7.3 |
| Nabla | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Eleos Health | 7.4 | 7.0 |
| DeepScribe | 7.3 | 7.0 |
| Tali AI | 6.8 | 7.2 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Per-clinician subscription sold to groups and health systems, with separate partner terms for software companies that embed Suki. |
| What usually drives cost | Number of clinicians, which EHR integration is used, and which features are switched on, such as ambient notes, dictation, and coding help. |
| What to ask in diligence | Annual price per clinician at your seat count, any EHR integration fee, and the price after the pilot ends. |
| Published pricing | No public list price on suki.ai. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Suki to function | |
| EHR integration path confirmed | Notes have to land in the chart without copy and paste. |
| Clinical champion per specialty | Templates and note style differ by specialty. |
| Patient consent workflow for recording | Clinicians need a standard way to ask before the assistant listens. |
| Device plan for desktop and mobile | Clinicians switch between exam room and workstation. |
| Baseline documentation time measured | Without it the pilot cannot show time saved. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Pilot with clinicians who chart after hours | They see the time back first. |
| Turn on dictation and orders after notes are stable | Too many features at once slows adoption. |
| Review note quality with coders | Coding help is only useful if coders trust the note. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| No EHR integration budget | |
| No patient consent process | |
| No clinical owner for templates | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Security review and EHR connection | 3-6 weeks |
| 2 | Pilot group of clinicians | 4-8 weeks |
| 3 | Rollout by department | 2-4 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.