Nabla vs Abridge (2026): Two US Clinical Scribes, One Australian Problem

The verdict in one line: Both are strong ambient AI scribes, and both scored 14/25 — ⭐⭐⭐ Good — in our reviews. Nabla aims at general practice and gives you a self-serve trial. Abridge aims at large hospitals and sells only by enterprise contract. For an Australian clinician the tie-breaker is not product polish. It is data residency, AU practice-software fit, and whether you can buy the thing at all. On all three, neither clears the bar. If you must pick between these two, Nabla is the more reachable tool for a typical Australian GP. But the honest recommendation is to buy neither, and choose a locally built scribe instead.

Two US-built clinical scribes. Both well funded. Both fast. Both scored 14/25 in our reviews — an identical ⭐⭐⭐ Good. On the surface, this looks like a close contest.

It is not, and not for the reason you would expect. Neither tool loses to the other. Both lose to the same thing: Australia.

Nabla is the ambient-notes tool built around general practice. Paris-founded, US-scaled, deployed across 150-plus health organisations and used by more than 85,000 clinicians on the company's own figures. You can start a free trial from the homepage.

Abridge is the hospital and specialist play. Pittsburgh-founded, Epic's first "Pal" partner, and embedded across marquee US health systems — Mayo, Kaiser, Johns Hopkins. You cannot start a trial. Abridge sells by negotiated enterprise contract only.

So this comparison has two layers. First, which tool suits which clinician. Second — and this decides it — how each one fares against the Privacy Act, AU practice software, and a real AU purchase path. That second layer is where both come apart.

What each one is for

Start with intent, because the two tools are not chasing the same buyer.

Nabla is built for the individual clinician and the practice. It runs in a browser or a mobile app. You start a consult, it captures the conversation in the background, and it drafts a structured SOAP-style note in — on Nabla's own claim — under 20 seconds. It covers 50-plus specialties but the shape of the product is general-practice-first: low friction, self-serve, note-in-note-out. A solo GP could trial it this afternoon.

Abridge is built for the health system. Its whole value lever is native Epic embedding — the note flows straight into the right chart sections rather than landing on a clipboard. It supports 55 specialties and 28 languages on the company's figures, and its reference customers are hospitals, not clinics. This is enterprise kit sold to procurement teams, not individual doctors.

That difference matters for an Australian reader. If you are a GP, Nabla is at least shaped like something you could use. If you run a large hospital group already standardised on Epic, Abridge is shaped like something you could theoretically deploy — though, as we will see, "theoretically" is doing heavy lifting.

What it costs in Australia

Here is the first hard wall. Neither vendor publishes a price you can rely on, in any currency.

Nabla lists no public pricing at all. The buying path is a sales call. Some third-party aggregators quote a free tier of around 30 notes a month and roughly US$120 per provider per month, but Nabla confirms none of it, so we do not report those numbers as fact. Treat them as market chatter.

Abridge publishes no pricing either. It sells by enterprise contract, with no self-serve checkout and no per-seat list price. A solo GP or small practice cannot buy it directly.

Because neither vendor confirms a figure, we are not printing an AUD conversion. A converted number built on an unconfirmed number is a guess on a guess, and our readers deserve better than that.

One genuine difference sits in that table. You can, at least, get to a quote with Nabla. With Abridge, an ordinary Australian practice cannot get through the front door at all. On buyability alone, Nabla is the more reachable of the two — a low bar, cleared narrowly.

GST note: an offshore supplier of digital services to Australian customers must register for and charge 10% GST once it passes the A$75,000 turnover threshold under Australia's imported-services rules. That is the general tax position for overseas software, not a vendor claim. Confirm GST handling in writing before you buy.

Feature diff

On raw product, these tools are closer than their positioning suggests. Both capture audio ambiently, both draft structured notes, both cover a wide specialty range, both carry mature security programs.

Two things stand out.

First, Nabla's data-handling defaults are the stronger story. Audio is not stored by default, and notes default to a 14-day retention window you can configure. For a privacy-minded clinician, "no recording kept" is a real point in its favour, and Abridge does not publish an equivalent AU-relevant detail.

Second, Abridge's headline advantage — native Epic charting — is close to irrelevant for most Australian clinicians. Australian general practice runs on Best Practice and MedicalDirector, not Epic. Neither tool integrates with either of those. So Abridge's best feature does not fire here, and Nabla's US-EHR list is just as inapplicable. Both would move notes by copy-paste in a typical AU practice.

The upshot: on product, Nabla edges it for the general-practice buyer, mostly on data-handling defaults and self-serve access. Abridge's strengths are real but pointed at a market that is not this one.

Australian fit — where it is decided

This is the section that matters, and it is the section where both tools fail our defining criterion.

Data residency. Nabla stores non-US clients' clinical notes in EU Google Cloud data centres and runs speech-to-text through US Azure regions. There is no Australian hosting option. Abridge publishes no data-residency statement at all — its trust centre names US frameworks and US infrastructure, with no AU region and no residency answer. Australian health data is among the most sensitive personal information under the Privacy Act 1988. Many practices, hospitals and state health services require, or strongly prefer, onshore storage. Nabla cannot meet an onshore requirement; Abridge will not even confirm where the data lives. Neither can satisfy APP 8 (cross-border disclosure) off the shelf.

Privacy posture. Nabla's compliance program maps to HIPAA, GDPR, CCPA and the EU AI Act — no published mapping to the Australian Privacy Principles. Abridge's set is HIPAA, SOC 2, CCPA and TX-RAMP — all US. Neither addresses My Health Record, RACGP or MBS documentation context. A practice would need its own legal review and a privacy impact assessment before deploying either.

Support and availability. Nabla lists offices in Brooklyn and Paris and publishes no AU support hours. Abridge publishes no AU sales motion, pricing or support presence. Neither markets to Australia. There is no AU time-zone support story for either.

GST and pricing. Covered above: no confirmed price for either, and the standard imported-services GST position applies to any offshore purchase. Confirm in writing.

The clinical caveat. This applies to every scribe, both of these included. An AI scribe drafts; it does not decide. The treating clinician remains responsible for the accuracy of the medical record and must review and correct every generated note before it is finalised. For Healthcare & Medical AI, that is not optional. It is the line that keeps the tool a tool.

The scores reflect the split. In our reviews, Nabla earned Australian Fit 2/5; Abridge earned 1/5 — the difference being that Nabla at least confirms where its data sits and offers a purchase path, while Abridge answers neither question. Both fail the Australian Fit gate: Australian Fit below 4/5 means neither can be rated Excellent, and neither can be a category Top Pick, regardless of raw score. See our Methodology.

Who should buy which

Let me be direct, because hedging here helps no one.

Buy Nabla — cautiously — if you are an Australian GP or practice determined to trial a US scribe, you accept EU/US data storage after your own privacy assessment, and you can live with copy-paste into Best Practice or MedicalDirector. Nabla is the more reachable tool: self-serve trial, confirmed data locations, better retention defaults. Get pricing and GST in writing, in AUD, before you commit.

Consider Abridge only if you run a large Australian hospital group already standardised on Epic, you have procurement muscle for an enterprise contract, and you can extract a written Australian data-residency commitment before signing. For any smaller AU clinician, Abridge is effectively unbuyable, and its Epic-first design misses the software you actually run.

Buy neither if you are a typical Australian GP — which most readers of this piece are. The criterion that matters most here, local fit, is exactly where both stumble. Two locally built scribes answer the residency, EHR and support questions that Nabla and Abridge leave blank:

• Heidi Health — Melbourne-built, AU data-residency options, broad support across AU practice software.
• Lyrebird Health — Australian-founded, designed around AU general practice workflows and AU EHRs.

The verdict

On product merit, this is a genuine tie: two capable scribes, both 14/25, both ⭐⭐⭐ Good. If someone forced a winner between just these two for a typical Australian buyer, it is Nabla — narrowly, and only because you can trial it, it confirms where its data sits, and its retention defaults are cleaner. Abridge is arguably the stronger raw product, but its enterprise-only model and blank data-residency answer put it further out of reach for an Australian clinician.

But naming Nabla the winner of this pair overstates the win. The real recommendation is the one both reviews reach on their own: for most Australian clinicians, a locally built scribe beats either. Heidi and Lyrebird were built for the Privacy Act and AU practice software from day one. Nabla and Abridge were built for somewhere else. Until one of them offers Australian hosting and AU clinical-software integration, that is the whole decision.

Good tools. Wrong market. For the typical Australian GP: choose a local scribe, not these two.

Frequently asked questions

Is Nabla or Abridge better for an Australian GP?

Nabla, narrowly — but neither is the right pick. Nabla offers a self-serve trial, confirms its data locations, and has cleaner retention defaults. Abridge sells enterprise-only and publishes no data-residency answer. For most Australian GPs, a locally built scribe like Heidi or Lyrebird beats both.

Can Australian clinicians buy Nabla and Abridge?

Nabla is reachable via a sales call and offers a free trial, so an AU practice could in principle buy it after getting a quote. Abridge sells only by negotiated enterprise contract to health systems, with no self-serve path, so a solo GP or small practice cannot buy it directly.

Do Nabla or Abridge store patient data in Australia?

No. Nabla stores non-US clients' clinical notes on EU Google Cloud servers and processes speech-to-text through US Azure regions, with no AU option. Abridge publishes no data-residency statement and names no Australian region. Under the Privacy Act 1988 and APP 8, both are problems for AU health data until resolved.

Do they integrate with Best Practice or MedicalDirector?

No. Neither Nabla nor Abridge lists any integration with Best Practice, MedicalDirector or Genie. Both name US EHRs only — Abridge's headline is native Epic charting, which most Australian general practice does not use. In a typical AU practice, notes would move by copy-paste.

What should Australian clinicians use instead?

Locally built scribes win on the criterion that matters most here — Australian fit. Heidi Health (Melbourne-built, AU residency options) and Lyrebird Health (Australian-founded, designed around AU general practice) answer the data-residency, EHR and support questions that both Nabla and Abridge leave blank.

Read next

• Nabla Review Australia 2026
• Abridge Review Australia 2026
• Category guide: Best AI Medical Scribes in Australia 2026

Sources

1. Nabla — homepage (product, general-practice positioning, integrations, specialties, scale, free trial) — https://www.nabla.com/ — Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260607022855/https://www.nabla.com/ — checked 7 June 2026
2. Nabla — Trust Center (data residency EU/US, retention defaults, no audio by default, certifications) — https://trust.nabla.com/ — Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260411054726/https://trust.nabla.com/ — checked 7 June 2026
3. Nabla — press release, personalised documentation (note-speed claim) — https://www.nabla.com/press-release/nabla-saves-clinicians-even-more-time-with-personalized-documentation — Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20251207215122/https://www.nabla.com/press-release/nabla-saves-clinicians-even-more-time-with-personalized-documentation — checked 7 June 2026
4. Abridge — homepage ("Enterprise-grade AI for clinical conversations") — https://www.abridge.com/ — Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260604105543/https://www.abridge.com/ — checked 7 June 2026
5. Abridge — Series E announcement (US$300M, a16z lead, 150+ health systems, 50M+ conversations, 55 specialties, 28 languages) — https://www.abridge.com/blog/series-e — Wayback: http://web.archive.org/web/20260607131601/https://www.abridge.com/blog/series-e — checked 7 June 2026
6. Abridge — Trust Center (SOC 2 Type 1 & 2, HIPAA, CCPA, TX-RAMP; no data-residency detail) — https://trust.abridge.com/ — Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260323193907/https://trust.abridge.com/ — checked 7 June 2026
7. Abridge — "Abridge Becomes Epic's First Pal" press release (Epic native integration) — https://www.abridge.com/press-release/abridge-becomes-epics-first-pal-bringing-generative-ai-to-more-providers-and-patients — Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20251217004240/https://www.abridge.com/press-release/abridge-becomes-epics-first-pal-bringing-generative-ai-to-more-providers-and-patients — checked 7 June 2026

The AI Directory Australia is an independent editorial publication. We don't accept payment for positive reviews. Read our Methodology and Affiliate Disclosure.