Suki vs Nabla vs DeepScribe: AI Scribes for Specialty Practices

Beyond Primary Care: Specialty Practices Need Specialty Scribes

Most AI scribe reviews are written by family medicine and internal medicine physicians. If you are a cardiologist, dermatologist, orthopedic surgeon, or gastroenterologist, those reviews are only partially relevant to your decision. Specialty encounters have different documentation requirements — procedure notes, structured exam findings, specialty-specific terminology, and visit types that generic AI models were not trained on.

Three AI scribes have made meaningful investments in specialty-specific capabilities: Suki, Nabla, and DeepScribe. We compared them across the dimensions that matter most to specialty practices — based on vendor documentation and public information; we have not tested these tools in clinical use.

The Specialty Documentation Challenge

Generic AI scribes struggle with specialty encounters in predictable ways:

• Terminology: A dermatology note describing a "well-demarcated erythematous plaque with silvery scale on bilateral extensor surfaces" requires medical vocabulary that general-purpose models may not handle accurately.
• Structured exams: Orthopedic and cardiology encounters include structured physical exam findings (range of motion measurements, murmur grading) that need specific formatting.
• Procedure documentation: Many specialty visits include procedures that require separate documentation with CPT-level specificity.
• Visit type variety: A cardiology practice may have routine follow-ups, stress test interpretations, device checks, and pre-procedure evaluations — each requiring a different note template.

Suki AI: Voice-Driven Flexibility

Suki takes a different approach than ambient-only scribes. While it includes ambient documentation, its core strength is its voice command interface. You can dictate, edit, and navigate your note using natural language commands. This is particularly valuable in specialty practices where the documentation workflow varies significantly between visit types.

Specialty strengths:

• Voice commands let you structure notes on the fly for different visit types
• Template system is highly customizable for specialty-specific workflows
• EHR integration across AthenaHealth, eClinicalWorks, Epic, and Cerner
• The dictation-style input works well for procedure notes where ambient recording alone falls short

Limitations:

• No free trial — you need a sales-arranged demo, which adds friction
• $299-$399/month is at the top of the mid-range pricing tier
• The design assumes active voice-command use alongside ambient capture — it is not built as a passive-only scribe

Best for: Physicians who prefer active voice control over passive ambient recording, and practices with highly variable visit types that benefit from real-time voice navigation.

Nabla: The Clinical Copilot Approach

Nabla positions itself as a clinical copilot rather than just a scribe, and for specialty practices this distinction matters. Beyond ambient documentation, Nabla offers pre-charting that pulls in specialty-relevant history, patient messaging assistance, and template flexibility that adapts to different encounter types.

Specialty strengths:

• Pre-charting pulls specialty-relevant data (prior imaging, lab trends, medication history) before the encounter starts
• Template system supports multiple note formats within a single specialty (e.g., cardiology follow-up vs. new patient vs. stress test interpretation)
• The copilot features (messaging, follow-up planning) add value beyond documentation alone
• Broad EHR support including NextGen, which is common in specialty practices
• Free trial available (length no longer published) to test with varied encounter types

Limitations:

• Not purpose-built for any single specialty — it is a strong generalist with good customization
• Setup takes longer than competitors (expect 2-4 hours to configure specialty templates)
• Pricing is no longer published (quote-based as of 2026-08-07) — historically mid-range, but you'll need a sales conversation to confirm

Best for: Multi-specialty groups or specialties with complex documentation needs (internal medicine subspecialties, psychiatry, neurology) where pre-charting intelligence adds significant value.

DeepScribe: Purpose-Built Specialty Models

DeepScribe has invested in training separate AI models for specific specialties. This is a fundamentally different approach than Suki (voice flexibility) or Nabla (copilot intelligence). DeepScribe's specialty models were trained on specialty-specific documentation; the pitch is notes that sound like a specialist wrote them, which is exactly what the 14-day trial exists to verify.

Supported specialty models:

• Family Medicine, Internal Medicine
• Cardiology
• Dermatology
• Orthopedics
• Gastroenterology
• Neurology
• OB/GYN
• Surgery

Specialty strengths:

• Specialty-specific AI models built per supported field, rather than one generic model
• Structured exam findings are formatted for each specialty's conventions
• Procedure documentation is a documented focus of the specialty models
• The 14-day free trial lets you evaluate accuracy with real specialty encounters
• EHR support across AthenaHealth, eClinicalWorks, Epic, DrChrono, and AdvancedMD

Limitations:

• At $350-$500/month, the specialty-specific models come at a premium price point
• If your specialty is not in the supported list, you are using the generic model at a premium price
• HIPAA independently audited (SOC 2 Type II attestation via its Vanta-published trust center); BAA available
• Setup requires configuring specialty-specific settings, which takes 2-3 hours

Best for: Practices in one of DeepScribe's supported specialties (especially cardiology, dermatology, orthopedics) where specialty-specific documentation accuracy is the top priority.

Head-to-Head Comparison

Our Recommendation

For specialty practices, our recommendation depends on your specialty:

Cardiology, dermatology, orthopedics, GI, or neurology: Choose DeepScribe. Its purpose-built specialty models are the most direct answer to specialty documentation, and the 14-day trial is enough to check the output against your own encounters.

Psychiatry, complex internal medicine subspecialties, or multi-specialty groups: Choose Nabla. The pre-charting intelligence and copilot features add the most value for complex encounters that benefit from longitudinal context.

Practices with highly variable visit types or physicians who prefer voice control: Choose Suki. The voice command interface provides the most flexibility for practices where no two days look the same.

All three are credible choices; the deciding factor is which approach — voice control, copilot context, or purpose-built models — matches how your practice actually works.

More comparisons in AI Scribes