Our analysts compared Netsmart vs Tebra EHR based on data from our 400+ point analysis of EHR Software, user reviews and our own crowdsourced data from our free software selection platform.
Analyst Rating
User Sentiment
among all EHR Software
Netsmart has a 'good' User Satisfaction Rating of 73% when considering 65 user reviews from 2 recognized software review sites.
Tebra EHR has a 'great' User Satisfaction Rating of 82% when considering 407 user reviews from 4 recognized software review sites.
SelectHub research analysts have evaluated Tebra EHR and concluded it earns best-in-class honors for Clinical Documentation, Dashboards and Reporting and Medical Billing.
Netsmart's software suite has sparked a range of opinions among users in the healthcare industry. While some appreciate its comprehensive features and ability to streamline complex workflows, others find its interface cumbersome and point to occasional technical glitches. A notable strength lies in its robust data analytics capabilities, empowering healthcare providers to gain valuable insights into patient populations and treatment outcomes. However, the learning curve associated with mastering the software's intricacies can be steep, particularly for those transitioning from other electronic health record (EHR) systems. Netsmart distinguishes itself by catering specifically to the behavioral health sector, offering specialized tools for managing mental health records, substance abuse treatment, and intellectual and developmental disabilities services. This focus on a niche market allows for a more tailored approach compared to broader EHR solutions. Ultimately, Netsmart appears best suited for larger behavioral health organizations with the resources to invest in training and implementation. Its extensive features and data-driven approach can significantly benefit such organizations, but smaller practices may find it overwhelming or cost-prohibitive.
With a user interface that’s easy to learn, navigate and get used to, Tebra EHR provides efficiency for clinical facilities. Its cost-effectiveness also sets it apart, according to user feedback. However, it doesn’t support all third-party integrations. Additionally, out-of-date tools and features tend to slow down users. Feedback is balanced regarding billing features and customer support, with some users considering them positives while others view them negatively. Overall, the product can be a good choice for independent medical practitioners.
WE DISTILL IT INTO REAL REQUIREMENTS, COMPARISON REPORTS, PRICE GUIDES and more...