Clinical systems · QHIN & clinical data network
Health Gorilla
Health Gorilla is a health data network and designated QHIN that lets EHR vendors and care organizations request patient records from national exchange networks through FHIR APIs.
Strong fit
- EHR vendors that need to connect to TEFCA through an approved national network
- Value-based care organizations that want outside records pulled from national exchange networks
- California organizations that take part in the state Data Exchange Framework
Weak fit
- Buyers that cannot take on vendor risk while lawsuits over patient-record requests are open
- Small practices that only need fax and Direct messaging
- Teams that want analytics and care-gap tools built on top of the records
Bottom line
Health Gorilla is worth considering for EHR vendors, value-based care groups, and digital health companies that need to request patient records from national exchange networks and connect to TEFCA. Buyers should weigh the open lawsuits over how some customers requested records.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Health Gorilla is a health data network company in Coral Gables, Florida.
EHR vendors, value-based care groups, and digital health companies use it to request patient records from national exchange networks. They also use it to connect to TEFCA, the federal framework for nationwide record exchange. It was among the first networks designated as a Qualified Health Information Network under TEFCA.
Steve Yaskin co-founded it in 2014 in Silicon Valley. Bob Watson, a longtime health IT chief executive, became executive chairperson and CEO in November 2024.
Its network connects customers to national exchange networks, labs, and California's Data Exchange Framework. It delivers records as FHIR data through its APIs. In April 2025 the company said it connected more than 220 million patients and 147,000 care sites.
That reach has also brought legal trouble. In January 2026 Epic and several health systems sued Health Gorilla and other data companies in federal court in California. They allege that some record requests were labeled as treatment while the records went to law firms.
In August 2026 a federal panel combined nine patient class actions involving the company into one case in the Southern District of Florida. Those open lawsuits hold the score down.
Other networks fit related needs. Particle Health suits a digital health company that wants a similar national records API.
Kno2 suits work that also includes fax, Direct messaging, and connections to nursing and rehab facilities. Zus Health suits a team that wants the records kept as one shared patient record.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Particle Health | 7.4 | 7.0 |
| Kno2 | 7.3 | 7.3 |
| Zus Health | 7.2 | 7.0 |
| Metriport | 7.2 | 7.2 |
| Redox | 7.1 | 6.8 |
| Smile Digital Health | 7.1 | 6.6 |
| Onyx | 7.0 | 7.0 |
| Health Gorilla | 6.9 | 6.8 |
| 1upHealth | 6.7 | 6.5 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Large contracts for network access and APIs, usually priced by the number of record requests and the networks used. |
| What usually drives cost | How many records you request, which networks and data types are included, and whether you connect as a TEFCA participant. |
| What to ask before you buy | The price per patient request or per month at your volume, setup fees, and what the contract says about allowed reasons for requesting records. |
| Published pricing | Health Gorilla does not publish a price list. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Health Gorilla to function | |
| A written, allowed reason for every request | Record requests must match the purpose claimed. |
| A way to match the right patient | Bad matches return the wrong records. |
| Legal review of network terms | TEFCA and Carequality rules bind the customer. |
| Engineers to work with the FHIR APIs | Records arrive as data, not a finished screen. |
| A plan for storing outside records | Someone has to decide what enters the chart. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Request records before visits, not in bulk | Targeted requests return more useful records. |
| Track how often patients match and records come back | Shows whether the network is paying off. |
| Review the open lawsuits with your lawyers | Contract terms may change as cases move. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You cannot document an allowed reason for requests | |
| You have no engineers for the API | |
| You cannot accept the risk of open lawsuits | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract and legal review | 4-8 weeks |
| 2 | API integration and testing | 6-12 weeks |
| 3 | Live record requests | 2-4 weeks |
Methodology
| Weight | Factor | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Customer outcomes | Whether buyers get measurable operational or clinical-workflow results after go-live |
| 30% | Product | Capability depth, reliability, and fit for the job the category buys |
| 20% | Implementation | How hard it is to stand up, integrate, train, and stabilize |
| 15% | Pricing clarity | Whether a buyer can model total cost without a mystery quote |
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Highly recommend | Strong outcomes and product with manageable caveats |
| Recommend | Solid fit for the right buyer; know the tradeoffs |
| Conditional | Only with a specific use case or heavy caveats |
| Not recommended | Avoid for most buyers in this category |
Read our full methodology for how we weight scores and assign recommend labels.