Our analysts compared Netsmart vs athenaOne 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.
athenaOne has a 'good' User Satisfaction Rating of 76% when considering 953 user reviews from 4 recognized software review sites.
SelectHub research analysts have evaluated athenaOne and concluded it earns best-in-class honors for Integration and Extensibility.
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.
Athena offers robust functionalities that streamline many daily tasks for care providers. Many users felt that the system offered all of the functionalities they were looking for and felt that the interface was easy to navigate and did not experience system downtime. Users also felt that customer support was able to address most of their concerns at a satisfactory level. However, some users felt that the claims functionality was unsatisfactory and recognized that the system couldn’t make their desired customizations. Users also noticed inaccuracies in their data, but many were unable to determine if this was a result of the system storing information incorrectly or the result of users experiencing difficulty navigating the platform. The high price of this system may be cost prohibitive as this system is best suited for smaller practices that won’t need to provide multiple care providers with access to the system.
WE DISTILL IT INTO REAL REQUIREMENTS, COMPARISON REPORTS, PRICE GUIDES and more...