Patient engagement & telehealth · Clinical collaboration
TigerConnect
TigerConnect provides secure clinical messaging and collaboration workflows for hospitals and care teams. It is not a patient appointment-reminder SMS product.
Strong fit
- Hospitals and ambulatory groups that need HIPAA-compliant clinical messaging across smartphones and desktops
- Care teams replacing SMS workarounds and pager fan-out with role-based clinical chat
- Buyers that want collaboration depth without buying a full nurse-call hardware stack
Weak fit
- Clinics that only need patient appointment texting and payment links
- Systems standardized on PerfectServe scheduling-plus-messaging that will not dual-vendor
- Organizations requiring Vocera-style wearable badges as the primary endpoint
Bottom line
TigerConnect earns a Recommend for clinical collaboration messaging in mid-market and enterprise care settings. Third-party estimates put revenue roughly in the $30–80M band with a few hundred employees after significant private-equity investment, under the hard cap. CEO Sean O'Neal leads a platform centered on secure messaging, roles, and care-team workflows rather than patient marketing SMS. Implementation still needs directory hygiene and EHR alert design. Pricing is enterprise-opaque. Score sits under PerfectServe when physician scheduling and operator orchestration are mandatory, and above ambulatory patient-inbox tools when the buyer problem is clinician-to-clinician collaboration.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
TigerConnect is a clinical collaboration company (formerly TigerText) that provides secure messaging and care-team workflows for hospitals and large ambulatory groups. Sean O'Neal became CEO in 2025.
It is clinician collaboration software, not a patient SMS marketing tool and not an EHR. Compare PerfectServe when scheduling and hospital operator workflows are part of the same RFP, and Spruce or OhMD when the clinic mainly needs a shared patient inbox.
Score reflects credible product depth for secure clinical chat with softer pricing transparency.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| OhMD | 7.5 | 7.4 |
| Curogram | 7.5 | 7.3 |
| PerfectServe | 7.4 | 7.0 |
| Spruce Health | 7.3 | 7.4 |
| TigerConnect | 7.1 | 6.9 |
| Rhinogram | 7.1 | 7.3 |
| QliqSOFT | 6.7 | 6.5 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Enterprise secure clinical messaging and collaboration subscription; quote-based. |
| What usually drives cost | Named users, advanced workflow modules, integrations, and support tier. |
| What to ask in diligence | Annual cost per clinical user including roles, escalation policies, and EHR notifications. |
| Published pricing | No public healthcare list price; procurement is quote-based on tigerconnect.com. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get TigerConnect to function | |
| Clinical directory and roles defined | Chat without roles recreates pager chaos. |
| EHR notification use cases prioritized | Alert fatigue kills adoption. |
| Mobile security policy signed | Security blocks install otherwise. |
| Escalation policies written | Messages die without escalation. |
| Department champions named | Top-down only installs fail. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Pilot two service lines first | Enterprise day one overwhelms. |
| Measure message acknowledgment times | Prove collaboration value. |
| Decommission SMS PHI workarounds | Workarounds recreate risk. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| Patient appointment reminders only | |
| Badge hardware-only RFP | |
| IT refuses any clinical messaging cloud | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Design and integrations | 3-6 weeks |
| 2 | Pilot | 3-6 weeks |
| 3 | Rollout | ongoing |
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.