IntakeQ vs Jane: Intake Forms or Full Practice 2027

The short answer: IntakeQ is the narrower purchase and Jane is the broader one, and on HIPAA paperwork the two are closer than their product scopes suggest. IntakeQ's public plans are built around intake forms, with scheduling, reminders and claims added on its Practice Management tier. Jane bundles scheduling, billing and telehealth into one product, but its own HIPAA guide is written for allied health clinics rather than physician offices. For a medical practice that needs secure intake forms and little else, IntakeQ is the closer fit. For a practice that wants scheduling, billing and telehealth in one tool, Jane is the closer fit, as long as its clinicians resemble the allied health practitioners Jane describes.

How we evaluated

Checked October 19, 2026. We worked only from public material read on that date: each vendor's pricing page, each vendor's HIPAA and feature pages, and the regulatory text for the two HIPAA rules that matter most when you buy. We did not open trial accounts, sit through a demo, or speak with either sales team, so nothing in this comparison is a hands-on test.

We compared the two products on five questions a practice manager has to answer for a partner. What is the list price, and what does it leave out? What does the vendor say about HIPAA and business associate agreements? Who does the vendor say the product is built for? What does the vendor say about security and data export? And what does it cost to leave later?

List prices are the figures each vendor prints on its own pricing page. We read both pricing pages twice on the review date and got the same plan figures each time. Where a vendor did not print a figure we need, the tables say "not in the text we read" rather than estimating one. Aggregator "starting price" listings were not used as vendor figures.

For the regulatory baseline we used 45 CFR 164.504, which governs business associate contracts, and 45 CFR 164.524, which governs patient access to records. For workload context we used the American Medical Association's survey on prior authorization, since it is the physician trade body's own data on administrative time. Prior authorization is not intake, but it shows where physician administrative time goes: according to American Medical Association, physicians and their staff spend an average of 13 hours a week on prior authorization alone, based on a survey of 1,000 physicians conducted in late 2024.

Who IntakeQ is for

IntakeQ describes its product as HIPAA-compliant online intake forms. According to IntakeQ, its audience list includes counseling, lactation, physical therapy, primary care, psychiatry, psychology and occupational therapy. That is a mix of mental health, allied health and medical practices, so a medical practice sits inside the stated audience, most clearly in primary care and psychiatry.

The product's center of gravity is forms. The Forms Only plans include unlimited form templates, branded custom forms, client and provider e-signatures, form reminders, treatment notes, secure document sharing and e-faxing. The Practice Management plans add appointment management, a booking widget, automated intake, a secure client portal, claims and superbills, task management and telehealth.

That split decides the fit question. If your scheduling and billing already run in a system you intend to keep, IntakeQ can sit beside it as the intake layer. If you need one place for appointments and claims, you need the Practice Management tier, and that tier is where both the price and the BAA wording need the closest reading.

A practice that plans to put AI into intake should read Patient-Facing Clinical LLM Explained: What It Changes first. A chatbot that collects a patient's history raises a different data-handling question from a static form, and a form tool's BAA does not settle that question on its own.

Who Jane is for

Jane is a practice-management product, and its own HIPAA guide is written for allied health. According to Jane, the guide addresses allied health clinics and practitioners and does not mention physicians. Nothing we read excludes medical practices, but Jane's public materials do not make the case for them, so a physician group should ask Jane to make that case in writing.

The scope is broad. Jane's Practice plan includes unlimited appointments and staff profiles, free SMS appointment reminders (which the page says vary by region), timesheets and integrated payments. The Thrive plan adds rooms and equipment scheduling, in-person patient self check-in, automated waitlist management, return-visit reminders, packages and memberships, and ratings and review tools. These are real operating features, and they are the reason Jane comes up in the same search as IntakeQ.

Jane's pricing is organized around practitioners. Each plan's base price covers one practitioner profile, additional practitioners are billed per month, and clinics with ten or more practitioners are directed to contact the team. For a medical practice with several clinicians, the per-practitioner fee decides the total. That is the number we could not read from the page, which is why the tables below mark it as not in the text we read.

Comparison: pricing, compliance and fit

Plan scope and limits

Both vendors publish their plans on their own pricing pages. The table covers plan scope and limits only and carries no dollar amounts, so it does not reflect any discount, contract term or fee that a sales team might add.

Source: IntakeQ pricing page (intakeq.com/pricing) and Jane pricing page (jane.app/pricing), both read October 19, 2026. Add-on prices appear in the next table.

Two points matter more than the headline numbers. IntakeQ's per-practitioner fee rises when a clinic moves from Forms Only to Practice Management. Jane's Practice line covers one full-time practitioner, so a clinic with three clinicians is buying more than the headline figure. According to IntakeQ, the low-volume Forms Only version is limited to 10 form submissions a month. According to Jane, the Balance plan caps appointments at 20 a month.

Jane's add-ons

Jane prices its add-ons on top of the plan, and they are where a clinic's total cost moves. The text we read lists no separate add-on prices for IntakeQ, so its per-practitioner fees are the variable to check.

Source: Jane pricing page (jane.app/pricing), read October 19, 2026. The illustrative column is our arithmetic on those list prices, not a vendor quote.

Feature and compliance comparison

Sources: IntakeQ HIPAA forms page (forms.intakeq.com/features/hipaa-compliant-forms) and IntakeQ pricing page; Jane HIPAA guide (jane.app/guide/is-jane-hipaa-compliant) and Jane pricing page. All read October 19, 2026.

On the BAA, both vendors say the right things, and neither publishes its full agreement text on the pages we read. IntakeQ's Practice Management plans say they include all Forms Only features, so the BAA probably carries over, but the page does not say so in those words. Jane's guide says it can work with a clinic to develop a BAA. A third-party compliance guide quotes Jane's Terms of Use as committing to its standard BAA on request, but we could not confirm that wording on Jane's own site, so ask for it in writing.

The rule behind that request is short. According to Cornell Legal Information Institute, a covered entity's contract with a business associate must require the vendor to use appropriate safeguards, report unauthorized uses and disclosures including breaches, pass the same restrictions to subcontractors, and let the covered entity end the contract for a material breach. Use that list as your checklist for both vendors. Ask each one which subcontractors and hosting providers touch your data, because the answer tells you whose safeguards you are relying on.

Pros and cons

IntakeQ

Pros:

• Its Forms Only plans include unlimited form templates, e-signatures, e-faxing and secure document sharing, which covers intake without a scheduler.

• Its audience list names primary care and psychiatry, which is closer to a medical practice than Jane's public guide is.

• Export runs to PDF, CSV and Dropbox on the Forms plans, which makes leaving easier to plan.

Cons:

• The Practice Management plans do not name the BAA separately, so confirm coverage before loading patient data there.

• The per-practitioner fee is higher on Practice Management than on Forms Only.

• The low-volume Forms plan caps submissions at 10 a month, so a practice that sends more than that cannot stay on it.

• Neither the pricing page nor the forms page states where data is stored.

Jane

Pros:

• Scheduling, reminders, billing, timesheets and telehealth sit in one product, with insurance billing as a priced add-on.

• Its guide describes individual staff accounts, per-person permissions and logging of all access, which is the access model a compliance officer asks about first.

• Its plan tiers are published, so you can compare scope before you talk to sales.

Cons:

• Its public guide is written for allied health clinics and does not mention physicians.

• The Balance tier caps appointments at 20 a month and covers one practitioner profile.

• The standard BAA text is not published, and the guide describes a BAA as something to develop with the clinic rather than a signed standard.

• The export feature is not described, so a move out needs a written answer first.

• Add-ons stack on the base price, so the headline figure is the floor for the total, not the total.

What switching actually costs

Switching costs have four parts: the records, the staff, the workflow and the compliance paperwork. Each is easy to underestimate. Neither vendor page we read publishes a migration fee or a migration timeline, so any estimate of how long a switch takes is our planning assumption, not a vendor figure, and you should test it with the vendor before you rely on it.

Start with records. IntakeQ's Forms plans export to PDF, CSV and Dropbox, so forms and their attachments can leave in formats another system can read. Jane's guide does not describe an export feature. Before you pick Jane, ask what its export contains, which fields it carries, and whether attachments and signatures come with it.

Records also have a legal clock. According to Cornell Legal Information Institute, a covered entity must act on an access request no later than 30 days after receiving it, and may take one extension of up to 30 more days if it gives the individual a written explanation within the first period. A migration that leaves you unable to produce a patient's records inside that window creates a compliance problem during the move, not after it.

Staff take longer than software. Jane requires each staff member to have an individual account, and permissions are set per person, so every user has to be provisioned, trained and checked against the new permissions. IntakeQ's standard Forms Only plan includes 2 assistant accounts, and the low-volume plan does not list that feature, so count your users against the plan before you buy. The load on staff is already heavy: according to American Medical Association, 40% of physicians have staff who work exclusively on prior authorizations.

The workflow matters more than either tool. Trace one patient through it: the form is submitted, staff verify insurance, the appointment is booked and a reminder goes out. On IntakeQ's Forms Only setup, the booking and reminder steps stay in whatever system you already run, so the hand-off from submitted form to insurance check is where information goes missing. A workflow built with US Tech Automations can be set up to route that hand-off, so the pending insurance check reaches staff in one queue instead of being rekeyed by hand.

On exit, the contract matters again. The business associate rule covers what happens to protected health information when the relationship ends, and the contract should say whether data is returned, destroyed or both. Ask each vendor to show you the export, the deletion process and the timeline in writing, and make sure the answer appears in the signed agreement, not only in a support email.

Verdict: which one to pick, and when to pick the other

The two products are close on the questions buyers check first. Both claim HIPAA support, both describe encryption and access logging, and neither publishes its full BAA text on the pages we read. They differ on scope and on who each product was written for, and that is where the decision sits.

Our verdict: choose IntakeQ if your practice needs secure intake forms and e-signatures, and already has scheduling and billing somewhere else. Choose Jane if you want scheduling, billing, telehealth and an AI scribe in one product, and your clinicians look like the allied health practitioners Jane describes. If you pick IntakeQ and keep a separate scheduler, the step to watch is the hand-off described above, where form answers have to reach the scheduler record, and US Tech Automations can handle the extraction side of that hand-off.

Source: our reading of the IntakeQ and Jane pages, October 19, 2026. Each recommendation depends on the vendor confirmations listed above.

The clinical gap matters too. Neither vendor's public pages describe e-prescribing or lab ordering, and we did not find those features on the pages we read. If your practice needs them, ask both vendors directly before you choose, because a missing feature changes the comparison more than any price in this article. If you are also evaluating vital-sign capture for intake, read What SmartSpectra Means for Healthcare Practices. If you are weighing agent-based automation across admin tasks, read Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform: What It Means for Healthcare before you commit to any platform that touches patient data.

Where the two are close, we say so. On HIPAA language and security claims, the difference shows up in the contract, not the marketing, so get the BAA text from whichever vendor you are considering before you decide.

FAQs

Does IntakeQ sign a business associate agreement?

IntakeQ says its platform includes a BAA, and its pricing page lists one on the Forms Only plans. Ask for the current standard text in writing before any patient data goes in, and confirm it covers the Practice Management tier if you are buying that.

Is Jane HIPAA compliant?

Jane says it is HIPAA compliant, but its guide does not include certification documents. It says it can work with a clinic on a business associate agreement, so get the signed agreement before you enter any patient records.

What are the entry plans on each pricing page?

IntakeQ's low-volume Forms Only plan is its entry tier, with a 10-submission limit, and Jane's Balance plan is its entry tier for one practitioner and 20 appointments. Neither entry plan includes per-practitioner fees for a larger team, and this post compares plan scope and limits rather than prices.

Do the list prices include add-ons?

No. Jane's AI Scribe, Group Telehealth and insurance billing are add-ons with their own per-practitioner or per-clinic fees, and IntakeQ adds a fee for each additional practitioner on top of the plan price.

Can a medical practice use Jane?

Jane's public material is written for allied health clinics and practitioners and does not name physicians. Nothing we read excludes medical practices, so ask Jane for a written statement on fit and a quote for your clinician count before you decide.

What should a buyer ask for before signing with either vendor?

Ask for the BAA text, the export format and fields, the per-practitioner price at your headcount, and any migration timeline, all in writing. A vendor that answers those four questions clearly has given you what you need to compare them.

Key Takeaways

• IntakeQ is the narrower product, built around intake forms, with scheduling and claims on its Practice Management tier.

• Jane bundles scheduling, billing and telehealth, but its public HIPAA guide is written for allied health clinics.

• The entry plans are IntakeQ's low-volume Forms plan and Jane's Balance plan, capped at 10 form submissions and 20 appointments a month respectively.

• Neither base price includes the per-practitioner fees or add-ons that set a clinic's real total.

• Both vendors say they will sign a BAA, so get the text and confirm it covers your tier before any patient data goes in.

• Plan the switch around export, staff accounts and the 30-day access window, since neither vendor publishes a migration timeline.

• The hand-off from a submitted form to a scheduler or insurance check is where information goes missing, so map it before you switch; US Tech Automations writes more on that on its home page.