Fathom vs Maverick AI
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
| Fathom | Maverick AI | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Not published · custom quote based on coding volume | Not published · custom, tied to coding volume |
| Speed to go live | 4 to 6 months, EHR integration and validation | customers typically live within 90 days |
| Automation model | Autonomous agents · autonomous coding, human review fallback | Autonomous agents · direct-to-bill autonomous coding |
| Built for | Enterprise systems, Billing companies | Mid-size groups, Enterprise systems, Billing companies |
| Security posture | HITRUST, SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA | HIPAA |
| Company maturity | 10 yrs (est. 2016) | 7 yrs (est. 2019) |
| Financial backing | $61M+ · Series B | $11.5M (per PitchBook) · Seed plus strategic investment |
| Named customers | 2 named | 1 named |
| Published results | Specific numbers public | Specific numbers public |
| Documented integrations | 3 listed | 1 listed |
| Third-party validation | None found | None found |
Bottom line
- Pick Fathom if you code high chart volumes and want most encounters coded autonomously, and can fund a multi-month EHR integration.
- Pick Maverick AI if you want charts coded and sent to billing without human coders, with 85 percent direct-to-bill.
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
Maverick AI
Real-time autonomous medical coding for revenue cycle teams
- Founded
- 2019
- HQ
- n/a
- Stage
- Seed plus strategic investment
- Raised
- $11.5M (per PitchBook)
What it does
- Real-time autonomous coding via the mCoder platform
- 85%+ direct-to-bill rate without human touch
- Codes most cases in seconds
- Reported 95% coding accuracy
- Streams coded results straight to billing systems
Where it's strong
- Real-time coding with a published 85%+ direct-to-bill rate, ahead of the batch processing common in the category.
- Proven at national scale through the RadNet implementation across US imaging sites.
- The Infinx investment and partnership give it a distribution channel into established RCM operations.
What buyers should weigh
- Widely cited reports of a $47M 2025 raise belong to competitor Nym, not Maverick; Maverick's disclosed funding is about $11.5M, so weigh vendor financial durability.
- Public proof points are concentrated in radiology; ask for evidence in other specialties.
- Roughly 15% of cases still route to human coders, so plan for a review workflow.
Named customers
RadNet
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.