Arintra vs Fathom
Two Autonomous Medical Coding vendors, side by side. Facts from public sources; judgments are ours.
At a glance
Derived from public facts · a rough scale, not a ranking
| Arintra | Fathom | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Not published · Custom quotes | Not published · custom quote based on coding volume |
| Speed to go live | Native via Epic Toolbox and athenahealth Marketplace | 4 to 6 months, EHR integration and validation |
| Automation model | Autonomous agents · direct-to-bill autonomous coding | Autonomous agents · autonomous coding, human review fallback |
| Built for | Mid-size groups, Enterprise systems | Enterprise systems, Billing companies |
| Security posture | HITRUST, HIPAA | HITRUST, SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA |
| Company maturity | 6 yrs (est. 2020) | 10 yrs (est. 2016) |
| Financial backing | $21.5M · Series A | $61M+ · Series B |
| Named customers | 2 named | 2 named |
| Published results | Specific numbers public | Specific numbers public |
| Documented integrations | 2 listed | 3 listed |
| Third-party validation | None found | None found |
Bottom line
- Pick Arintra if you code high volumes in Epic or athenahealth and want autonomous coding without changing clinician workflow.
- Pick Fathom if you code high chart volumes and want most encounters coded autonomously, and can fund a multi-month EHR integration.
Arintra
Autonomous medical coding that runs inside your EHR
- Founded
- 2020
- HQ
- Austin, TX
- Stage
- Series A
- Raised
- $21.5M
What it does
- Fully autonomous coding from clinical documentation
- Works inside Epic and athenahealth, no workflow change
- Denial reduction and revenue capture on automated claims
- Coding audit trails and compliance documentation
- Specialty coverage across outpatient service lines
Where it's strong
- Published customer results are specific and strong: 5.1% revenue lift and 43% fewer denials on automated claims at Mercyhealth.
- Direct-to-billing autonomy rather than coder-assist, which is where the cost savings actually are.
- In-EHR operation means no new workqueue tool for HIM teams to learn.
What buyers should weigh
- Small named customer list so far; ask for references in your specialty mix and payer mix.
- A Series A vendor carries more long-term viability risk than Solventum or Optum for a core RCM function.
- Verify coverage for your setting; published wins skew toward outpatient and professional coding.
Named customers
Mercyhealth · Reid Health
Integrations
Fathom
High-volume autonomous coding across specialties
- Founded
- 2016
- HQ
- San Francisco, CA
- Stage
- Series B
- Raised
- $61M+
What it does
- Codes encounters autonomously with deep learning and NLP
- Automates 90%+ of coding volume in many deployments
- Covers ED, radiology, primary care, and other specialties
- Routes low-confidence charts to human coders
- Improves HCC/RAF capture for value-based contracts
- Reduces coding cost, denials, and days to bill
Where it's strong
- Highest published automation rates in the autonomous coding market, with customer-verified results like Your Health's 95.5% automation at 98.3% accuracy.
- Epic Toolbox listing and multi-specialty deployment model shorten implementation for health systems.
- Strategic backing from CVS Health Ventures and clinical investors like Cedars-Sinai signals enterprise credibility.
What buyers should weigh
- Narrowly focused on coding, so you still need separate vendors for the rest of the revenue cycle.
- Automation rates vary a lot by specialty and documentation quality; your mix may not hit headline numbers.
- Total disclosed funding is modest relative to peers, worth probing on enterprise support depth.
Named customers
ApolloMD · Your Health
Integrations
Compare against the rest of Autonomous Medical Coding
Deciding between these two?
First Pass tracks Autonomous Medical Coding every week: funding, launches, and what changed since this page was written.