Skip to content

Product Benchmark & Cost Analysis

Merry AI vs Nabla: Multispecialty Scribe Benchmark

Discrete ROM and wound fields, flat pricing, and audit-ready G2211 logic, compared. Book your audit at https://cal.com/merryai/demo.

Key Takeaways
  • Merry AI Pro Annual ($54/mo) cuts annual software overhead by about 54% compared to Nabla Pro at roughly $119/mo
  • Browser DOM injection writes directly into EHR exam and procedure fields with zero copy-paste lag
  • ROM degrees and wound dimensions are captured as discrete values for every minor procedure
  • Validated against clinical prompts at Access Clinical Prompts at templates.scribing.io
Feature Breakdown

Merry AI vs Nabla

Direct feature, workflow, and pricing benchmark comparison.

Feature CapabilityMerry AINabla
Annual Cost per Clinician|Merry AI$648 flat (Pro Annual)Nabla
EHR Write Method|Merry AIChrome overlay bound to exam and procedure fieldsNabla
Minor Procedure Measurements|Merry AIROM degrees and wound cm² written to discrete inputsNabla
Group Therapy Notes|Merry AIDiarized per-member notesNabla
Audio Retention|Merry AIShredded from RAM, 0-day retentionNabla

Head-to-Head Architecture Comparison

When multispecialty groups evaluate documentation tools, the useful question is not whether a note reads well. It is whether the measurements a payer looks for end up in the fields where the billing engine and the auditor actually look. Those measurements include flexion degrees, wound length and width, and prior therapy dates. Nabla produces a capable narrative note. Merry AI is built to populate the discrete exam and procedure fields beneath it.

The table below summarizes what we observed, using published pricing and our own internal timing on browser-based EHRs. Nabla figures reflect its public materials at the time of review. Please verify current terms with Nabla directly.

ParameterMerry AINabla
Real pricingPro Annual $54/mo ($648/yr), flat and unmeteredFree tier with a monthly encounter cap; Pro about $119/mo ($1,428/yr); Enterprise quoted separately
DOM injection speedSub-second write to mapped fields (internal benchmark)Note text inserted or copied into the main note area; timing depends on clinician steps
Discrete-field mappingROM degrees, wound cm², LVEF, and PHQ-9 bound to exam and procedure inputsNarrative note; structured-field mapping not publicly documented
Group note-splittingDiarized per-member notes for group psychotherapySingle-encounter note; per-member splitting not publicly documented
CPT G2211 captureLongitudinal-complexity prompt with an evidence trailNo dedicated G2211 logic publicly documented
Attestation loggingClinical Logic Bridge block with time-stamped clinician sign-offClinician review before export; no attestation block documented
Data retentionAudio shredded from RAM, 0-day retentionStates audio is not stored by default; confirm note retention settings

Cost Modeling for a Multispecialty Panel

The arithmetic is deliberately simple. At Nabla's Pro list price of roughly $119 per clinician per month, a ten-clinician group spends about $14,280 per year. Merry AI Pro Annual, at $54 per month, costs $6,480 for the same group. That is a difference of $7,800, or about 54.6 percent. For context, Freed lists around $99/mo, and Nuance DAX enterprise contracts commonly run near $8,000 per clinician per year. Both Nabla and Merry AI sit at the self-serve end of the market.

Software price is only half the ledger, and recovered revenue usually matters more. HCPCS G2211 pays roughly $16 nationally under recent fee schedules. Suppose a clinician appropriately reports it on four established visits per day across 244 clinic days. That captures about 976 add-ons, or roughly $15,600 annually. The figure depends entirely on documentation that supports a continuing, longitudinal relationship.

G2211 Documentation Logic

CMS describes G2211 as reflecting the complexity inherent to being the continuing focal point for a patient's care, or to ongoing care of a single serious or complex condition. Merry AI extracts prior therapy dates, chronic problem history, and follow-up plans into structured history fields, then flags the visit for clinician review. It never appends modifier 25 to G2211 itself. It allows G2211 alongside a modifier-25 E/M only when the same-day service is a preventive visit, an annual wellness visit, or vaccine administration, consistent with current CMS guidance. Diagnosis specificity is checked against the code sets at https://www.cms.gov/medicare/coding-billing/icd-10-codes.

Discrete Exam and Procedure Field Binding

Most browser-based scribes, Nabla included, deliver text to the main note region. That is useful. However, a payer reviewing a debridement or joint injection wants numbers in the procedure record, not buried in the fourth paragraph of an HPI.

Orthopedic and Wound Measurements

Merry AI parses spoken measurements such as 'right knee flexion 95 degrees, extension lacking 10' and writes each value to the corresponding ROM input. For wounds, it captures length, width, and depth in centimeters, computes area in cm², and populates the wound panel alongside tissue type and debridement depth. Every minor procedure receives its measurable parameters. This supports modifier 59 or XS distinctions when separate anatomic sites are treated on the same day.

Overlay Binding Across Tabs and Iframes

The Chrome extension binds its overlay directly to exam and procedure fields, including panels rendered inside nested iframes or hidden tabs. When a specialty tab is not yet rendered, Merry AI queues the values and writes them once the panel mounts, rather than failing silently. Selector maps are versioned per EHR. As a result, a vendor UI update triggers a visible remap prompt instead of a misplaced value.

Audit Posture and Fit Assessment

CMS reported a 10.3 percent improper payment rate for E/M codes in its 2024 data. Incorrect coding accounted for 49.1 percent of those errors, and insufficient documentation accounted for 34.1 percent. Those categories are exactly where narrative-only notes are vulnerable.

Merry's Clinical Logic Bridge records which transcript segment supported each coded element. The clinician signs a time-stamped attestation block before anything leaves the extension. Audio is held only in volatile memory and shredded once values are written, which gives a 0-day retention posture. For California practices, patient-facing summaries carry AB 3030 disclosures and a pathway to contact a human; clinician-reviewed internal notes are handled separately.

Nabla's privacy stance is genuinely conservative, and we credit it. The difference between the two products is less about retention than about structure: what gets written, where it goes, and what evidence is attached.

If your clinicians mainly need a clean narrative note and a free entry tier, Nabla is a reasonable choice. Your panel may instead include orthopedics, wound care, cardiology, or group behavioral health, where discrete values and per-member notes drive reimbursement. In that case, the structured approach tends to pay for itself within the first quarter.

We would rather show you than assert it. Bring one de-identified encounter from your busiest specialty and Schedule a 15-Minute Workflow Audit. We will map the fields together and compare outputs line by line.

Quantifiable Practice ROI

Verified Metric
2.1+ Hrs

Saved Daily Per Physician

Finish all documentation before the patient leaves the room.

Verified Metric
54%

Lower Annual Software Overhead

Predictable flat rate with zero per-encounter metering fees.

Verified Metric
$15,600+

Annual CPT G2211 Recovery

Defensible documentation of longitudinal complexity across outpatient panels.

Explore More Knowledge

Related Product & Solution Comparisons Guides

View all product & solution comparisons
Merry AI vs Suki AI: Independent Primary Care Review
Product Benchmark & Cost Analysis

Merry AI vs Suki AI: Independent Primary Care Review

Cost, EHR coverage, and G2211 attestation math for independent practices. Book your audit at https://cal.com/merryai/demo.

Dr. Sarah Chen, MD•7 min read
Read guide
Merry AI vs Heidi Health: Primary Care G2211 Review
Product Benchmark & Cost Analysis

Merry AI vs Heidi Health: Primary Care G2211 Review

Cost, DOM injection, and G2211 capture compared for primary care. Book your audit at https://cal.com/merryai/demo.

Dr. Sarah Chen, MD•7 min read
Read guide
Merry AI vs Nabla for Orthopedics: Cost & Coding
Product Benchmark & Cost Analysis

Merry AI vs Nabla for Orthopedics: Cost & Coding

ROM degrees, wound sizes, and G2211 logic written into ortho EHR fields. Book your audit at https://cal.com/merryai/demo.

Dr. Sarah Chen, MD•7 min read
Read guide