Isabel Healthcare vs Navina
Isabel Healthcare sells DDx Companion to the individual clinician who wants a ranked differential. The vendor's pricing page lists Standard at $149/year (EUR 139 including VAT), with a 30-day free trial and a $49/year student and resident plan. The vendor says the correct disease lands in the top ten with 96% accuracy. A 2025 Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases study of 100 rare-disease patients, per a summary of the paper, found its top ten matched at least one case-conference diagnosis in 28%, and the authors say history filtering may limit standalone effectiveness. The vendor says it is in the Cerner App Gallery and gives Epic clients info-button access.
Navina is bought by a value-based primary care group, so a clinician shopping for a differential tool and a group shopping for risk-adjustment help are different customers. KLAS comments, all unrated excerpts, describe a per-member-per-month fee on an attributed population and a Chrome extension that one EHR vendor does not love. Navina has no public price.
Decision support · Reviewed November 2, 2026
Isabel Healthcare
by Isabel Healthcare · founded 1999
Differential-diagnosis generator with self-triage and educator products. The vendor says it is used in over 90 countries and 14 languages.
Navina
by Navina · founded 2018
AI copilot for chart review, risk adjustment and care gaps in primary care and value-based care groups.
When to pick each one
Isabel Healthcare
- Standard plan $149/year (EUR 139 including VAT)
- 30-day free trial
- Student and resident plan at $49/year
Navina
- athenahealth, Epic and Veradigm named on homepage
- Ambient transcription alongside chart review
Score
Each row shows points earned of points available under the published rubric.
Isabel Healthcare
35of 100
Navina
36of 100
| Dimension | Isabel Healthcare | Navina | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA clearance | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 | 0 |
| HIPAA / SOC2 / BAA | 0 / 10 | 10 / 10 | -10 |
| EHR integrations (count) | 0 / 5.6 | 1.7 / 5.6 | -1.7 |
| 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 | 14.7 / 21 | 0 / 21 | +14.7 |
| RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review | 0 / 9 | 0 / 9 | 0 |
| Funding & adoption signal | 6 / 12 | 8.4 / 12 | -2.4 |
| Pricing transparency | 2.5 / 2.5 | 1.3 / 2.5 | +1.3 |
| Years in market | 6 / 6 | 6 / 6 | 0 |
Scroll horizontally to see every column.
Pricing
Isabel Healthcare
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | n/a | $149 | EUR 139 incl. VAT. 30-day free trial. |
| Premium | n/a | $199 | EUR 179 incl. VAT. Adds an LLM layer (English only). |
| Student / resident | n/a | $49 | Not available to EU students. 50% discount for listed emerging economies. |
| Institutional | n/a | n/a | Demo request, no public price. The API has been available since 2010. |
Navina
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | n/a | n/a | No public price. |
Evidence
Isabel Healthcare
FDA decisions
No FDA decision cited in our research as of October 20, 2026.
Peer-reviewed
2 PubMed records name Isabel Healthcare.
- Cracking the code: a head-to-head comparison of expert clinicians and artificial intelligence in diagnosing rare diseases. (opens in new tab)
- Is language an issue? Accuracy of the German computerized diagnostic decision support system ISABEL and cross-validation with the English counterpart. (opens in new tab)
Navina
FDA decisions
No FDA decision cited in our research as of November 2, 2026.
Compliance and integrations
Documented from each vendor’s own pages.
| Spec | Isabel Healthcare | Navina |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | ||
| HIPAA | ||
| SOC 2 Type II | ||
| EHR integrations | Not specified | athenahealth, Epic, Veradigm |
| Founded | 1999 | 2018 |
| HQ | UK | n/a |
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.