Greenway Health vs eClinicalWorks: Which Fits in 2027

Pick the category first: two bundled EHR suites

Greenway Health and eClinicalWorks both sell an ambulatory electronic health record (EHR), the software a clinic uses to document visits, orders, and prescriptions. Each usually bundles practice management (PM), which covers scheduling, billing, and claims, so the real decision is between two suites that carry their own billing, support, and data-access terms rather than between two point tools. If your main pain is claims lag or front-desk scheduling, price the PM and billing layer first, because that is where a switch costs the most.

The short answer: if you need a published price to budget against, eClinicalWorks is the only one of the two whose list price you can read today. If support is your deciding factor, both vendors draw weak independent reviews, so the job is to get support commitments in writing from whichever one you shortlist. Greenway's current product pages show no price at all, so every Greenway figure you budget with will come from a quote.

Key Takeaways

• eClinicalWorks publishes three plans on its pricing page: EHR Only, EHR with Practice Management, and RCM as a Service at 2.9% of collections.

• Greenway Health showed no pricing on the product pages we opened, so any Greenway number you use will be a quote.

• Independent grades are low for both vendors: TechTarget scores Greenway D-minus and eClinicalWorks C-minus, and both draw support complaints.

• Greenway's public FHIR API is read-only, so an outside workflow can read data but cannot write results back without its proprietary GAPI.

• The Department of Justice announced a $155 million settlement with eClinical Works in 2017 over certification claims, and the settlement included no determination of liability.

• Decide on support, data access, and exit terms in writing, because a headline per-provider price does not show the total cost.

What each vendor is today

Greenway Health's platform is now branded Novare, and the company's Novare page calls it "a complete ambulatory care platform" with EHR, telehealth, analytics, patient engagement, interoperability, and practice and revenue management listed as components. The company was reorganized in November 2013, when Vista Equity Partners took the public Greenway Medical business private and combined it with Vitera and SuccessEHS under the Greenway Health name. Wikipedia's entry describes Vista as the majority owner (according to Wikipedia).

Intergy and PrimeSUITE are older product names. Wikipedia still describes them as cloud-based EHR and practice management systems for ambulatory practices, but Greenway's EHR page describes "Cloud-based EHR software powered by AWS" and does not mention Intergy at all. Ask the sales team which product you would actually be sold: Novare, Intergy, or PrimeSUITE, and whether the contract covers a migration path between them.

eClinicalWorks is privately held. Its CEO and co-founder wrote in January 2015 that the company "is, and always will be, a privately-held company" (according to Healthcare IT Today). No 2026 source we opened reports a sale, but that statement is more than a decade old, so confirm ownership in writing before you rely on it. Its pricing page sits alongside product lines for an EHR, an inpatient EHR, a pharmacy management system, an AI Workbench, value-based care tools, and a revenue cycle service, plus Sunoh.ai, an AI medical scribe.

How we evaluated these two vendors

This is an informed buyer's guide built from public vendor pages, independent reviews, and one federal settlement. We did not run either product, and no figure below comes from a sales call. The weights in the table are our judgment, set for a small practice that will sign a multi-year contract, and you can change them to fit your own priorities.

The 0-5 scale is a simple rubric: 5 means a buyer can verify the point from a public source, and 0 means it cannot be verified without a quote. Under that rubric eClinicalWorks scores higher on price transparency, Greenway scores lower, and both score low on support. We did not add up a total score, because a total would hide that the two vendors fail on different criteria.

Feature matrix: what is public and what is not

A "Not listed" cell means the product page we opened does not name that component, not that the vendor lacks it. For a small outpatient practice, the rows that matter most are billing, the public API row, and the independent grades in the evidence section, because those decide how much you can budget, how much of your data you can reach, and how much support you can expect.

Pricing and the five-provider math

EHR Only plan: $499 per provider per month according to eClinicalWorks (2026). The same page lists EHR with Practice Management at $599 per provider per month and RCM as a Service at 2.9% of practice collections.

Pricing checked October 26, 2026.

Greenway's pricing is quote-based across its product pages. The Novare page carries no pricing or plan language, and its only calls to action are a demo-request button and "Contact Us." Greenway's revenue services are also listed without a rate.

Take a five-provider practice that bills about $500,000 a year in collections, an assumption for illustration rather than a benchmark. On eClinicalWorks's EHR Only plan the software line is 5 × $499 = $2,495 a month, or $29,940 a year. On EHR with Practice Management it is 5 × $599 = $2,995 a month, or $35,940 a year, a $6,000 annual gap before any add-on. The RCM plan at 2.9% would add $14,500 a year at that collection level, so the billing decision alone can outweigh the EHR price gap. For Greenway, the same five providers have no published figure to compare, so the only fair step is to ask for a quote that prices the same modules. If you want each new encounter pulled into a worksheet, Greenway's documented read path is the Encounter endpoint, get_encounter in its regulatory compliance reference, and that path returns data without writing a status back.

eClinicalWorks's pricing page says billing implementation is included with the EHR with Practice Management and RCM plans but is not listed for EHR Only. It says initial training is included for practices with one to nine providers, and that larger practices pay additional implementation fees without a published amount. The page also says data migration from an existing EHR is free, that airfare is billed separately, and that usage fees apply per patient statement and per eClinicalMessenger transaction without amounts. It does not state contract length or minimum commitments, so ask for both in writing.

Independent evidence on support and satisfaction

Independent reviews matter more here than the list prices, because both vendors' support records are the weakest part of their public profiles.

Satisfied users: 34% Greenway, 62% eClinicalWorks according to TechTarget (2025). The same article grades Greenway's overall performance D-minus and eClinicalWorks C-minus, and it describes eClinicalWorks customers reporting "buggy updates that disrupted workflows" and "inconsistent customer support and limited training."

KLAS's 2024 Complete Look on Greenway, published April 26, 2024 and scored on a 100-point scale, reports that most respondents are dissatisfied with support and that pricing and fees are unclear (according to KLAS (2024)). KLAS publishes a separate eClinicalWorks report, but its scores are paywalled, so we could not read them and do not draw a comparison from them.

Greenway Health: best fit, limits, and implementation

Greenway fits a practice that wants a cloud EHR from a vendor with an AI-forward roadmap and a bundled revenue service, and that can get the Novare migration path and its full module list in writing. Its own Novare page is built around that pitch. Its illustrative example claims a 35% revenue improvement for a hypothetical 10-provider practice with 15 staff, and the page adds "Results may vary" (according to Greenway Health). Treat that as the vendor's example, not a measured outcome. TechTarget also credits Greenway with user-friendly navigation, customizable documentation, and decent virtual care tools.

The limits are consistent across the independent sources. TechTarget says customers describe Greenway as lacking modern technology compared with competitors, calls its integration capabilities outdated, and reports ongoing customer service struggles and cost increases for added features. KLAS's findings point the same way on support, which is the reason the support terms belong in the contract, not in a sales email.

Implementation depends on the data path. Greenway's developer overview states that "The current Greenway FHIR API supports read operations only at the present time" (according to Greenway Health). Its proprietary GAPI supports reads and writes, but the docs route dashboard access to marketplace partners and clients, so write access is a commercial conversation. The getting-started page says "A public sandbox will be available soon," so ask for sandbox access before you plan an integration.

On AI, Greenway's chief executive said in January 2026 that the company had built "the foundation for an agentic AI factory" and had already created four agents (according to Healthcare IT Today (2026)). The GAIL assistant is available through chat, and voice support was described as coming shortly, with no date given.

eClinicalWorks: best fit, limits, and implementation

eClinicalWorks fits a practice that wants list prices on the table, one plan that covers both EHR and practice management, and the option to hand billing to the vendor on a percentage fee. TechTarget calls the integrated EHR and PM in a cloud-based infrastructure a standout benefit, and notes that lower initial licensing costs attract budget-conscious buyers. The caveat is in the same review: customers felt "nickel-and-dimed" when they added features after signing. The published list price does not include those add-ons, so the list price is the floor of your cost, not the total.

The limits are the update and support record. TechTarget reports buggy updates that disrupted workflows, inconsistent customer support, and limited training. Those complaints are the reason to ask for the support SLA, the training commitment, and a release-testing description before you sign.

Settlement: $155 million, May 31, 2017 according to Bass, Berry & Sims (2017). The government alleged that eClinicalWorks misrepresented its software's certification, including hardcoding drug codes to pass certification testing, and it alleged kickbacks to customers who promoted the product. The settlement included no determination of liability. For a buyer, that history is diligence material rather than a verdict, so ask for current certification documentation and how the vendor tests updates before they reach your practice.

For implementation, the pricing page leaves the fee for practices above nine providers unpublished, so ask for that figure in the quote along with the usage fees for patient statements and eClinicalMessenger transactions.

Who this is for

• Choose eClinicalWorks if you want a published per-provider price, one plan that covers EHR and practice management, and a written quote for add-ons before you sign.

• Choose Greenway Health if you already run Intergy or PrimeSUITE and need the Novare migration path and AI feature list in writing, and you can accept a read-only public API for now.

Red flags: no public Greenway price, a read-only public API, and the 2017 eClinicalWorks settlement over certification claims.

If your shortlist also includes athenahealth or NextGen, our athenahealth vs NextGen guide for medical practices covers that separate decision.

The handoffs that break after a switch

A proposed denial follow-up workflow, configured for your practice and not a live deployment, would start when a denied or partially paid claim lands in the billing queue from your practice-management export. US Tech Automations would match that claim to the encounter record, pull the visit note and codes, and draft an appeal letter. The output is a draft in an approval queue, and a billing lead approves, edits, or rejects it before anything goes to a payer, which is the review point that matters most. Prerequisites are a billing export or read path from your system, a written data-handling agreement that covers patient data (we have not verified one for this product), and a named owner for the approval step. On Greenway, the encounter read can come from the read-only FHIR API, but any status change returns to a person by hand. On eClinicalWorks, confirm export rights before designing anything, because the public pages we opened do not document an API.

A second proposed workflow handles records requests. The trigger is an email asking for a patient's records. The workflow logs the request in a tracker with its due date, drafts a cover letter, and queues an identity check for the staff member who releases records. The release itself stays manual. US Tech Automations' public site names connectors for Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Sheets, HubSpot, QuickBooks, and Stripe, and it does not list an EHR connector, so reading from either EHR would be a custom build that needs its own access review.

Zapier, Make, n8n, or an in-house build

Zapier, Make, and n8n can run both flows, and when they are configured they can keep run histories, retry failed steps, branch on errors, and write audit logs. What they do not do for you is decide who is alerted when a run fails, prevent a duplicate appeal draft when a retry fires, set escalation rules, lock down credentials, or maintain the flow when either EHR changes its API. An in-house build gives full control, but it moves all of that work onto your staff. A proposed US Tech Automations design would configure those same controls as part of the build: run logs, duplicate checks on each claim ID, an escalation path to a named lead, and approval gates before anything leaves the practice. The prerequisites are the same as for any custom build: API or export access, read-only credentials where possible, and a named owner for each review point.

When NOT to use US Tech Automations

If your practice only needs appointment reminders, a patient portal, or a clearinghouse's claim-status screen, the vendor's built-in tools are the simpler answer, and a workflow layer adds cost and a second system to maintain. It is also the wrong purchase if your EHR offers no export or read path at all, because there is nothing for a workflow to act on, and that gap is a data-access problem to fix first. Low-volume billing follow-up that one trained person can run from a checklist belongs in a checklist, not a custom build.

Decision checklist

1. Get Greenway's price in writing per provider per month, including implementation and every add-on module you need.

2. Ask eClinicalWorks for the implementation fee for practices above nine providers and the usage fees per patient statement and eClinicalMessenger transaction.

3. Ask both vendors for contract length, minimum commitment, and exit terms in writing.

4. Confirm the data export format and whether any API read rights come with the contract before you sign.

5. Ask which product you will be sold, Novare, Intergy, or PrimeSUITE, and what the migration path costs.

6. Request the support SLA and two reference checks from practices of your type before you choose.

7. For eClinicalWorks, ask for current certification documentation and its update-testing process.

Frequently asked questions

Is Greenway Health owned by Vista Equity Partners?

Yes, Vista Equity Partners is described as the majority owner of Greenway Health, which Vista formed in 2013 by combining several businesses under one name (Wikipedia).

Does eClinicalWorks publish its prices?

Yes, for three plans on its pricing page: $499 per provider per month for EHR Only, $599 for EHR with Practice Management, and 2.9% of practice collections for RCM as a Service.

Which vendor costs less for five providers?

On published numbers alone, eClinicalWorks's EHR Only plan comes to $29,940 a year for five providers, but Greenway has no public figure, so you cannot compare the two yet.

Can I take my data out of eClinicalWorks?

The official page says data migration from an existing EHR into eClinicalWorks is free, but it does not state export terms, so get the exit process and any fees in writing before you sign.

Does Greenway offer an open API?

Greenway's FHIR R4 API is read-only, and writes go through its proprietary GAPI, which its docs route through marketplace partners and clients.

Before you sign

For a small practice, this choice usually turns on whether you can get the terms in writing. eClinicalWorks is easier to budget because it publishes list prices, but its independent reviews and 2017 settlement make diligence essential. Greenway is harder to price and has a read-only public API, so its value depends on what its quote and GAPI access include. If you want to see how a denial follow-up or records-request flow would be configured against your own practice's export, see how US Tech Automations configures this.