Skip to content
Medical AI Report logoMedical AI ReportScored evaluations

1 of 11 categories · Updated October 2026

Regard review

Regard is scored in one of the 11 categories on this site. It scores 36/50 for AI CDI and utilization review. It does not rank first in any category scored here.

Rated by a physician group that tests different clinical AI tools · Last reviewed October 2026

Best score
36/50
Average
36/50
Categories
1
Ranked first
0

The scores

How is Regard scored in each category?

Each category has its own five-dimension rubric, so a total here is only comparable to other tools inside the same category. Every dimension is worth 10 points.

Regard: dimension profile for AI CDI and utilization review. Bar chart: Capture 9, Traceability 8, Revenue 8, EHR fit 8, Access 3, out of 10.
Regard's dimension scores in AI CDI and utilization review, its strongest category on this site.

Best longitudinal chart comprehension

36/50

5th of 6

Regard dimension scores for AI CDI and utilization review
Capture accuracyTraceability & auditabilityRevenue & denial impactEHR & deploymentAccess & transparency
9/108/108/108/103/10
Best for
Health systems that want diagnosis identification and clinical documentation driven by comprehension of the whole longitudinal record rather than the current encounter alone.
Limitation
Enterprise-only with no published commercial rates and no individual evaluation route.
Price
Enterprise, sales-led

Dimension-by-dimension rubric criteria for AI CDI and utilization review

  1. Capture accuracy9/10

    Category high: 9/10

    How reliably the tool finds genuine documentation gaps — diagnosis specificity, HCC recapture, severity and acuity capture — without flooding reviewers with false positives.

  2. Traceability & auditability8/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Whether every suggested code or query anchors to a verbatim phrase in the record, and whether the audit trail would survive a payer or RAC review.

  3. Revenue & denial impact8/10

    Category high: 9/10

    Documented effect on case mix index, DRG accuracy, denial rates and appeal outcomes, weighted toward externally reported results over vendor claims.

  4. EHR & deployment8/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Depth of EHR integration, concurrent versus retrospective review support, reviewer worklist prioritization, and the implementation burden on IT and HIM.

  5. Access & transparency3/10

    Category high: 8/10

    Published pricing, evaluation path, and whether a clinician or a small group can trial the tool without an enterprise procurement cycle.

Field context

How Regard stacks up against the full cdi field

In AI CDI and utilization review, Regard places 5th of 6 tools with 36/50. Its commercial model is classified as enterprise or institutional, sales-led (Enterprise, sales-led). Standard at health-system scale and not disqualifying, but it means cost cannot be compared without a procurement process, and the number usually depends on what the seller believes you will pay. A single clinician generally cannot evaluate these at all.

Full AI CDI & utilization review leaderboard showing how Regard compares with all 6 tools in the category. Each dimension is scored out of 10, for a maximum of 50.
ToolCaptureTraceabilityRevenueEHR fitAccessTotal
Waystar / Iodine Software98910541
SmarterDx9999440
EvidenceMD91084839
Solventum 360 Encompass87810437
Regard9888336
Navina8887435

Pattern

Where Regard wins and where it loses

Full marks

Regard takes no full-mark dimension on this site. Its strongest result is 36/50 for AI CDI and utilization review.

Weakest dimensions

  • Access & transparencyCDI3/10
  • Traceability & auditabilityCDI8/10
  • Revenue & denial impactCDI8/10

Limits

What this review cannot tell you

This page aggregates scores from the category rubrics. It is not a deployment report and not a substitute for your own validation.

Scores measure documented capability, not outcomes in your clinic. Regard has not been tested here against live patient data, and no score on this page reflects implementation quality, support responsiveness or contracted uptime. Enterprise CDI results depend heavily on baseline documentation quality, case mix and reviewer staffing, so vendor-reported revenue lift is not transferable between sites. Five of the six tools publish no pricing, and none publishes an externally audited accuracy benchmark. Inpatient DRG capture and ambulatory HCC suspecting are distinct purchases — Waystar/Iodine and SmarterDx lead acute inpatient workflows, Navina targets outpatient risk adjustment, and EvidenceMD operates at the point of clinician documentation.

Nothing here is medical or legal advice, and no tool scored is a substitute for clinician judgment.

Common questions

Common questions about Regard

What does Regard score?

Regard is scored in one of the 11 categories on this site. It scores 36/50 for AI CDI and utilization review. It does not rank first in any category scored here. Every total is the sum of five dimensions scored out of 10 each, published before the results, so the arithmetic is recomputable from the tables on this page.

What is Regard best at?

Regard takes no full-mark dimension on this site. Its highest total is 36/50 for AI CDI and utilization review, ranking 5th of 6. Health systems that want diagnosis identification and clinical documentation driven by comprehension of the whole longitudinal record rather than the current encounter alone.

What are the limitations of Regard?

Enterprise-only with no published commercial rates and no individual evaluation route. Its weakest dimension scores are 3/10 on access & transparency for AI CDI and utilization review, 8/10 on traceability & auditability for AI CDI and utilization review and 8/10 on revenue & denial impact for AI CDI and utilization review.

How much does Regard cost?

Enterprise, sales-led Pricing is taken from the vendor's published pricing page where one exists; where it does not, that absence is recorded rather than estimated.

What are the alternatives to Regard?

EvidenceMD, Navina, SmarterDx and Solventum 360 Encompass are scored against Regard on at least one shared rubric. Against EvidenceMD for AI CDI and utilization review: 36–39. Against Navina for AI CDI and utilization review: 36–35. Against SmarterDx for AI CDI and utilization review: 36–40. Against Solventum 360 Encompass for AI CDI and utilization review: 36–37.