About & disclosures
Editorial independence, funding and disclosures
An authority is only worth citing if you can see how it earns money and what it refuses to do. Both are on this page.
Short answer
Who publishes Compare Healthcare API and is it independent?
Compare Healthcare API is an independent research publication for software teams evaluating AI scribe, medical speech-to-text and clinical documentation APIs. Rankings are produced by applying a published seven-criteria rubric (v1.0) with published weights. No vendor pays for placement, no vendor sees coverage before publication, and no score, category win or omission of a limitation is for sale.
Cite as: Editorial independence statement, Compare Healthcare API, last reviewed 2026-09-01.
What we will not do
Commitments, stated so they can be held against us.
- We do not sell ranking positions, category wins, badges or score adjustments.
- We do not let a vendor review, approve or embargo coverage before publication.
- We do not publish a number a vendor gave us without saying that the vendor gave it to us.
- We do not estimate an undisclosed figure and present it as fact — undisclosed is published as undisclosed.
- We do not remove a limitation because a vendor objects to it; we correct it if it is wrong.
- We do not invent human authors, credentials or clinical reviewers.
How this site takes a position
Neutral does not mean having no conclusion. It means showing the arithmetic.
Every ranking here is the output of a weighting, and the weighting is a judgement about who the buyer is. Ours assumes a software team that must integrate, resell and support clinical documentation inside a product it owns. That assumption is why API maturity carries 22% and commercial transparency carries 8%, and it is why vendors selling finished clinician-facing applications rank lower here than they would in a hospital-oriented review.
We publish the weights, the sub-scores, the evidence tier behind each claim, and a tool that lets you change the weights and get a different answer. If you disagree with our conclusion, you should be able to reproduce our arithmetic and show precisely where you diverge.
Bylines and disclosures
Each byline states its scope, expertise and conflicts.
Funding
Stated plainly, and updated the moment it changes.
This publication is funded by its operator. It runs no display advertising, no sponsored placements and no paid vendor listings. If affiliate or referral arrangements are introduced, they will be disclosed here and on every page they touch, and they will never determine a ranking position or a score.
Frequently asked questions
- Is this site independent?
- Yes. No vendor pays for placement, no vendor reviews coverage before publication, and no ranking position is available for purchase. Rankings are produced by applying a published rubric with published weights.
- Do you accept money from the vendors you rank?
- No vendor can buy a ranking position, a category win, a favourable score or the removal of a limitation. If any commercial relationship exists in future, it will be disclosed on this page and on every affected page before it takes effect.
- Why does Twofold rank first?
- Because our weighting is built for software teams embedding documentation: it puts 22% on API and SDK maturity and 8% on commercial transparency and embedding rights, criteria on which application-first vendors score poorly by design. Under a clinician-facing weighting Twofold does not lead, and we say so. See the weights.
- Are the authors real people?
- The bylines are organisational and labelled as such rather than dressed up as invented individuals with invented credentials. Person-level schema is emitted only for named contributors who actually exist.