eCART vs Glass Health
Glass puts its EHR connections behind the Max plan at $200 per month, which the vendor says adds assisted workflows for Epic, eClinicalWorks, athenahealth and Elation. Lite ($0 per month) and Starter ($20 per month) carry ad sponsorships, and Pro at $90 per month is the first ad-free tier. The vendor claims no FDA clearance. A small, non-randomized four-case study of NEJM case records had Glass AI correct on one, ChatGPT-4 on none and a diagnostic generator on all four. The vendor says it offers BAAs to providers and organizations. AgileMD's eCART gives hospital ward nursing and quality teams a real-time High, Moderate or Average risk score for hospitalized patients, and the same vendor sells Clinical Pathways order sets. Glass is for the clinician writing the note and eCART is for the team watching the ward, so each is the wrong shape for the other's buyer.
Decision support · Reviewed November 2, 2026
eCART
by AgileMD
Early warning software that scores hospitalized ward patients for risk of deterioration from EHR data, for use by trained clinicians.
Glass Health
by Glass Health · founded 2021
DDx plus literature-grounded A&P plus ambient scribe in one workflow.
When to pick each one
eCART
- Real-time High, Moderate, Average ward risk score
- Same vendor sells Clinical Pathways order sets
Glass Health
- Plans from $0 to $200 per month
- Scribe, differential and billing suggestions together
- EHR workflows only on $200 Max, vendor says
Score
Each row shows points earned of points available under the published rubric.
eCART
56of 100
Glass Health
42of 100
| Dimension | eCART | Glass Health | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA clearance | 12 / 12 | 0 / 12 | +12 |
| HIPAA / SOC2 / BAA | 10 / 10 | 6 / 10 | +4 |
| EHR integrations (count) | 0 / 5.6 | 2.8 / 5.6 | -2.8 |
| Top-3 EHR coverage (Epic / Oracle / Athena) | 0 / 4.8 | 3.4 / 4.8 | -3.4 |
| Bidirectional write-back | 0 / 1.2 | 0 / 1.2 | 0 |
| Peer-reviewed papers | 21 / 21 | 8.4 / 21 | +12.6 |
| RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review | 0 / 9 | 0 / 9 | 0 |
| Funding & adoption signal | 3 / 12 | 8.4 / 12 | -5.4 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.3 / 2.5 | 2.5 / 2.5 | -1.2 |
| Years in market | 0 / 6 | 4.2 / 6 | -4.2 |
Scroll horizontally to see every column.
Pricing
eCART
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | n/a | n/a | No public price. There is no pricing page; the site offers a demo request only. |
Glass Health
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lite | n/a | n/a | Limited scribing and clinical decision support. Carries ad sponsorships. |
| Starter | $20 | n/a | Carries ad sponsorships. |
| Pro | $90 | n/a | Most popular tier, ad-free. |
| Max | $200 | n/a | For clinics. EHR integration (Athena, Epic, eCW, Elation) is available only on this tier. |
Evidence
eCART
FDA decisions
K233253 (opens in new tab)510(k)2024-06-21
eCARTv5 Clinical Deterioration Suite (eCART)
Peer-reviewed
5 PubMed records name eCART.
- Early Warning Scores With and Without Artificial Intelligence. (opens in new tab)
- Multicenter Development and Prospective Validation of eCARTv5: A Gradient Boosted Machine Learning Early Warning Score. (opens in new tab)
- DETERIO-LLM: enhancing traditional deterioration risk scores with clinical context and advanced reasoning. (opens in new tab)
Glass Health
FDA decisions
No FDA decision cited in our research as of October 26, 2026.
Peer-reviewed
1 PubMed record names Glass Health.
Community
1 post sourced: 0 positive, 1 neutral, 0 negative.
Compliance and integrations
Documented from each vendor’s own pages.
| Spec | eCART | Glass Health |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | ||
| HIPAA | ||
| SOC 2 Type II | ||
| EHR integrations | Not specified | Epic, athenahealth, eClinicalWorks, Elation |
| Founded | n/a | 2021 |
| HQ | US | US |
Scroll horizontally to see both columns.
Common questions
Open the full decision support comparison
Differential diagnosis, treatment guidance, drug interactions, evidence-grounded Q&A. The CDS landscape ranges from the UpToDate gold standard to physician-only OpenEvidence. We compared what clinicians actually use.