Azalea Health vs Tebra

Azalea Health was founded in 2008 in Valdosta, Georgia, and is now headquartered in Atlanta. They provide cloud-based healthcare IT solutions tailored to small practices, rural health clinics, and critical access hospitals. Their platform combines electronic health records, practice management software, revenue cycle management, analytics, and telehealth services into one system designed to simplify operations and improve patient care. Core features include a single patient record that unifies clinical and billing information, a patient portal for engagement, customizable templates, real-time updates, integrated billing workflows, and built-in telehealth sessions. Customer experience with Azalea Health is mixed but leans positive overall. Users often praise the system’s ease of use, responsive customer support, and quick onboarding, with some users reporting full training completed in under a week. At the same time, negative reviews mention long-term contracts, additional fees for features, and occasional performance slowdowns. Azalea does not publish standard pricing; instead, they offer a quote-based model. While some practices found them initially affordable, others reported rising costs due to add-ons and package changes. 

Tebra, formed from the 2021 merger of Kareo and PatientPop, offers an all-in-one, cloud-based EHR and practice management platform tailored for independent healthcare providers. Their suite includes AI-assisted charting, telehealth, automated billing, and patient engagement tools like online scheduling and reputation management. Notable features such as “Same-as-Last-Time” (SALT) documentation and robotic process automation aim to streamline workflows and reduce administrative burdens. The platform is ONC-certified and HIPAA-compliant, emphasizing security and compliance. Tebra’s flexible pricing model, with no long-term contracts, appeals to small practices seeking scalability. However, their user reviews are mixed, with many commending their intuitive interface and efficiency, while others report challenges with customer support and occasional system downtimes. Despite some criticisms, Tebra maintains a strong presence in the market, serving over 150,000 providers and managing 190 million patient records. For independent practices aiming to modernize operations without sacrificing affordability, Tebra presents a compelling option. However, potential users should weigh their strengths against reported service inconsistencies. A thorough evaluation, including a demo and consultation, is recommended to determine their fit for specific practice needs.