Our analysts compared eClinicalWorks vs Luma Health based on data from our 400+ point analysis of Patient Scheduling Software, user reviews and our own crowdsourced data from our free software selection platform.
Analyst Rating
User Sentiment
among all Patient Scheduling Software
eClinicalWorks has a 'fair' User Satisfaction Rating of 68% when considering 523 user reviews from 3 recognized software review sites.
Luma Health has a 'excellent' User Satisfaction Rating of 94% when considering 102 user reviews from 2 recognized software review sites.
SelectHub research analysts have evaluated eClinicalWorks and concluded it earns best-in-class honors for Dashboard and Reporting, Mobile Capabilities, Patient Engagement, Schedule Management and Telehealth.
Luma Health stands above the rest by achieving an ‘Excellent’ rating as a User Favorite.
The core functionality of eClinicalWorks is suitable for most medical practices and comes at a fair price. However, many users felt that they were oversold on the product by the sales team. Many users complained of difficulty using the features they needed, and felt that the system interface made it difficult to navigate. Users reported issues with system bugs and were unable to receive sufficient support from the support team to rectify the issues they experienced, despite access to 24/7 support. Some users noted that customer support is outsourced and complained that a language barrier made it difficult to communicate. Ultimately, eClinicalWorks is best suited for small practices with basic EHR needs, though it may take users a few days to learn the system.
Luma Health paints a mixed picture in user reviews. Praised for its streamlined communication, empowered patients, and workflow efficiency, it faces criticism for limited customization, occasional glitches, and higher price tags. "Luma transformed our patient engagement," one user raves. "Appointment reminders cut no-shows in half, and patients love the secure messaging and online bill pay." Others echo this sentiment, highlighting Luma's "intuitive interface" and "patient-centric approach" compared to "clunky alternatives." However, some users find Luma less flexible. "Customization options are limited," one reviewer complains. "I wish I could personalize certain features to better fit our practice's workflow." Others mention occasional technical hiccups, calling them "frustrating workflow disruptions." Cost also emerges as a concern. "Compared to other patient engagement platforms, Luma can be expensive, especially for smaller practices," one user notes. This price point, coupled with the onboarding effort required to get patients actively using the platform, can be a hurdle for some. Overall, Luma Health shines in its ease of use and patient-centric features, but its customization limitations, technical glitches, and higher price tag might deter some users. Ultimately, the decision seems to hinge on individual practice needs and budget constraints. As one user aptly summarizes, "Luma is a powerful tool, but it's not a one-size-fits-all solution."
WE DISTILL IT INTO REAL REQUIREMENTS, COMPARISON REPORTS, PRICE GUIDES and more...