| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Converts physician dictation into text using advanced speech recognition models trained on medical terminology, clinical speech patterns, and domain-specific vocabulary. The system processes audio streams in real-time, applying medical language models to disambiguate clinical terms (e.g., 'lesion' vs 'legion') and maintain accuracy across diverse medical specialties. Integration with EHR systems (Epic, Cerner) enables direct insertion of transcribed text into patient notes without manual copy-paste workflows.
Unique: Implements medical-domain speech recognition with EHR system integration (Epic, Cerner native plugins) rather than generic speech-to-text, enabling direct note insertion without intermediate steps. Uses medical vocabulary fine-tuning on clinical speech corpora to improve accuracy on medical terminology vs. general-purpose speech engines.
vs alternatives: Faster clinical adoption than Dragon Medical due to freemium model and simpler onboarding, but lower accuracy on specialized terminology than enterprise solutions like Nuance that offer extensive customization and specialty-specific training.
Automatically maps transcribed dictation to structured clinical note templates within Epic, Cerner, or other EHR systems, populating assessment/plan sections, vital signs, and other standardized fields. The system uses pattern matching and NLP to extract clinical entities (diagnoses, medications, procedures) from free-text dictation and insert them into the correct EHR template fields, reducing manual template navigation and field-by-field data entry.
Unique: Implements bidirectional EHR integration with native template mapping rather than standalone transcription — uses EHR-specific APIs (Epic FHIR, Cerner CDS Hooks) to read template schemas and write structured data directly into patient records. Pattern-based entity extraction (diagnoses, medications) tailored to clinical note structure.
vs alternatives: Tighter EHR integration than generic transcription tools, but less flexible than enterprise solutions offering unlimited custom template support or specialty-specific pre-built templates.
Allows clinicians or administrators to define custom medical terminology, institutional jargon, and specialty-specific vocabulary that the speech recognition engine learns to recognize and transcribe accurately. The system maintains a custom vocabulary database per clinic or provider, enabling the model to disambiguate context-specific terms (e.g., 'Jones fracture' in orthopedics vs. generic 'fracture') and reduce transcription errors for domain-specific language.
Unique: Implements per-clinic or per-provider vocabulary customization rather than one-size-fits-all medical model, enabling specialty-specific accuracy improvements. Uses vocabulary injection into the speech recognition pipeline to weight custom terms higher during decoding, improving recognition of institutional jargon.
vs alternatives: More accessible customization than enterprise solutions requiring dedicated ML engineers, but less sophisticated than systems offering full model retraining or active learning from user corrections.
Provides a freemium tier allowing clinicians to test Scribeberry without upfront commitment, with usage limits (e.g., minutes of transcription per month) and feature restrictions (e.g., no EHR integration). Paid tiers unlock full EHR integration, higher usage limits, and premium features. The system tracks usage per user or clinic and enforces quota limits, with transparent billing and upgrade paths.
Unique: Implements freemium model with usage-based quotas rather than time-limited trials, allowing indefinite testing with feature/usage restrictions. Lowers barrier to trial compared to competitors requiring upfront payment or sales contact.
vs alternatives: More accessible entry point than enterprise-only solutions like Dragon Medical, but less transparent pricing than competitors with published per-minute or per-user rates.
Displays transcribed text in real-time with visual indicators (highlighting, confidence scores) for low-confidence words or phrases, allowing clinicians to immediately correct errors during or after dictation. Corrections are logged and can feed back into the model to improve future accuracy for that user or clinic. The system maintains a correction history and provides undo/redo functionality for rapid editing.
Unique: Implements real-time confidence-based highlighting and correction workflow rather than post-hoc batch correction, enabling immediate error detection. Correction feedback is captured and potentially used for per-user or per-clinic model adaptation.
vs alternatives: More interactive than batch transcription services, but requires more user engagement than fully automated solutions that handle errors silently.
Supports deployment across multiple clinicians within a clinic or health system with role-based access control (admin, provider, staff). Administrators can manage user accounts, configure clinic-wide settings (EHR integration, custom vocabulary), and monitor usage across providers. Each provider has isolated transcription history and custom vocabulary, while admins have visibility into clinic-wide metrics and compliance.
Unique: Implements clinic-wide deployment model with shared configuration (EHR integration, custom vocabulary) applied to all providers, rather than per-user setup. Provides admin dashboard for monitoring usage and compliance across multiple clinicians.
vs alternatives: More suitable for small clinic deployments than enterprise solutions requiring dedicated IT support, but lacks advanced features like LDAP/SAML integration or multi-clinic management.
Tracks transcription accuracy metrics (word error rate, confidence scores, error patterns) and provides analytics dashboards showing performance trends over time. The system identifies common error patterns (e.g., specific words or accents that are frequently misrecognized) and can surface recommendations for improvement (e.g., custom vocabulary additions, microphone upgrades). Accuracy is measured against manual corrections and can be compared across providers or specialties.
Unique: Implements continuous accuracy monitoring with trend analysis and error pattern detection, rather than one-time accuracy validation. Provides actionable insights (custom vocabulary recommendations) based on error patterns.
vs alternatives: More transparent than competitors lacking public accuracy metrics, but less sophisticated than enterprise solutions offering detailed error analysis and root cause investigation.
Processes audio and transcription data on secure cloud infrastructure with HIPAA-compliant encryption (in-transit and at-rest), access controls, and audit logging. Audio files are encrypted before transmission, processed in isolated environments, and deleted after transcription (with configurable retention policies). The system maintains audit logs of all data access and processing for compliance verification.
Unique: Implements HIPAA-compliant cloud processing with encryption and audit logging, enabling healthcare providers to use cloud-based transcription without on-premises infrastructure. Claims HIPAA compliance but lacks public security certifications.
vs alternatives: More accessible than on-premises solutions requiring dedicated infrastructure, but less transparent than competitors with published SOC 2 or HITRUST certifications.
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to perform chained mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparisons) across both structured tables and unstructured text extracted from SEC filings. The dataset provides ground-truth question-answer pairs where answers require synthesizing data from multiple locations within earnings reports and applying sequential arithmetic operations, testing whether models can decompose complex financial queries into discrete computational steps.
Unique: Combines real SEC filing documents (not synthetic) with crowdsourced questions requiring multi-step arithmetic, creating a hybrid dataset that tests both domain knowledge extraction and quantitative reasoning in a single evaluation task. Unlike generic math word problems, answers require locating figures within 10+ page documents first.
vs alternatives: More challenging than DROP or SVAMP because it requires financial domain knowledge AND document retrieval before arithmetic, whereas generic math benchmarks assume figures are already extracted
Assesses whether AI systems understand financial terminology, accounting concepts, and domain-specific metrics by requiring them to answer questions about real earnings reports from S&P 500 companies. The dataset tests recognition of financial line items (revenue, COGS, operating expenses, net income), ability to distinguish between different financial statements (income statement vs balance sheet), and understanding of financial ratios and metrics without explicit instruction on their definitions.
Unique: Uses authentic SEC filings rather than synthetic financial data, exposing models to real-world accounting variations, footnote complexity, and the actual structure of professional financial documents. This tests transfer learning from general text to specialized domain without domain-specific pretraining.
vs alternatives: More authentic than synthetic financial QA datasets because it uses real earnings reports with their inherent complexity, but narrower than general financial knowledge benchmarks because it focuses only on historical data interpretation
FinQA scores higher at 60/100 vs Scribeberry at 43/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to extract numerical data from both structured HTML/text tables and unstructured prose within the same document, then reason over the extracted values. The dataset contains questions where relevant data appears in different formats — some figures are in formatted tables with clear row/column headers, while others are embedded in narrative text or footnotes — requiring robust parsing and entity linking before computation can occur.
Unique: Combines structured table data with unstructured narrative in the same evaluation, forcing systems to handle format heterogeneity and resolve references across different data representations. Most table QA datasets use clean, isolated tables; this tests real-world document complexity.
vs alternatives: More realistic than isolated table QA benchmarks (like SQA or WikiTableQuestions) because it requires handling narrative context and format mixing, but simpler than full document understanding because tables are already in text format (no OCR needed)
Provides a curated, crowdsourced-annotated dataset of 8,281 question-answer pairs with multi-step reasoning requirements, enabling systematic evaluation of AI systems on financial numerical reasoning. The dataset includes quality control mechanisms through crowdworker annotation, answer validation against ground truth, and coverage across diverse financial metrics and company types within the S&P 500, creating a reproducible evaluation standard for the financial AI community.
Unique: Provides a publicly available, reproducible benchmark specifically designed for financial numerical reasoning with real SEC filings, enabling standardized comparison across different financial AI systems. Most financial datasets are proprietary or synthetic; this is open-source and authentic.
vs alternatives: More specialized and challenging than generic QA benchmarks (SQuAD, MRQA) because it requires financial domain knowledge and multi-step arithmetic, but narrower in scope than comprehensive financial understanding benchmarks because it focuses only on numerical reasoning
Assesses AI systems' ability to perform multi-hop reasoning by requiring them to locate and combine information from different sections of earnings reports. Questions may require finding a figure in the income statement, then locating a related metric in the balance sheet, then performing arithmetic across both — testing whether models can maintain context across document boundaries and understand relationships between different financial statement sections.
Unique: Embeds multi-hop reasoning requirements within authentic financial documents where hops correspond to real relationships between financial statement sections, rather than synthetic reasoning chains. This tests whether models understand domain structure, not just generic multi-hop patterns.
vs alternatives: More realistic than synthetic multi-hop datasets (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA) because reasoning hops follow actual financial relationships, but less controlled because document structure varies and reasoning paths are implicit rather than explicitly annotated
Enables evaluation of whether AI systems can identify which arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparison) are required to answer financial questions, then execute them correctly. The dataset implicitly tests operation selection — a question asking 'what is the profit margin' requires division (net income / revenue), while 'what is total assets' requires addition — forcing models to understand financial semantics before applying math.
Unique: Embeds arithmetic operation selection within financial domain context, requiring models to understand that 'margin' semantically maps to division and 'total' maps to addition. This tests semantic grounding of operations, not just arithmetic execution.
vs alternatives: More semantically grounded than generic math word problem datasets because operation selection is implicit in financial terminology, but less explicit than datasets with annotated operation types because operations must be inferred
Provides evaluation capability for AI systems to compare financial metrics across multiple S&P 500 companies or aggregate metrics across different time periods within the same company's earnings reports. While individual questions reference single documents, the dataset structure enables evaluation of systems that can retrieve and compare relevant companies, requiring understanding of which metrics are comparable across entities and how to normalize for company size or accounting differences.
Unique: Provides a foundation for evaluating cross-company financial comparison by including diverse S&P 500 companies with different business models and scales, enabling assessment of whether systems can normalize and compare metrics appropriately. Most financial QA datasets focus on single-document questions.
vs alternatives: Enables cross-company evaluation unlike single-document QA datasets, but requires external retrieval and comparison logic because the dataset itself contains only single-document questions