Patient engagement · Scheduling & outreach suite
Relatient
Relatient is a patient scheduling and engagement suite for ambulatory groups. Practices use reminders, self-scheduling, and two-way messaging as one access layer tied to the EHR schedule. It is not primarily an intake-to-payment stack.
Strong fit
- Outpatient groups that want reminders, self-scheduling, and messaging in one tool
- Access teams that track fewer no-shows and more online booking
- Groups that run a separate intake and payments tool and need outreach next to it
Weak fit
- Buyers who mainly need intake through payment in one system (see Phreesia)
- Solo practices that only need the text reminders built into their EHR
- Health systems looking for a full telehealth EHR rather than patient messaging
Bottom line
Relatient is worth using for outpatient access teams that rely on reminders, self-scheduling, and two-way patient outreach. It suits practices with clean EHR schedule sync and careful location and template setup. Practices that want intake and payments together may prefer Phreesia.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Relatient serves outpatient access teams whose daily work is reminders, self-scheduling, and two-way outreach.
Its results on no-shows and bookings look believable when the link to the EHR schedule is clean.
It covers more than a simple messaging tool, though less than Phreesia's combined intake and payments.
Setup still depends on how carefully you map locations and provider templates.
Pricing covers several modules, so estimate it at your visit volume before treating the sales pitch as the quote.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Relatient | 7.2 | 6.9 |
| Clearwave | 7.1 | 6.8 |
| Curogram | 7.5 | 7.3 |
| Phreesia | 8.2 | 7.8 |
| Solutionreach | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| Spruce Health | 7.3 | 7.4 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | A subscription priced by locations, providers, or message volume. |
| What usually drives cost | Self-scheduling, waitlist, and outreach modules, when they are not in the base quote. |
| What to ask before you buy | Compare it with what no-shows cost in your specialties, and confirm whether intake and payments are included or handled elsewhere. |
| Published pricing | Relatient does not publish prices. Expect a custom quote, and confirm the total cost at your volume. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Relatient to function | |
| A clean link to the EHR schedule for self-scheduling and reminders | These tools fail when provider templates and slots are wrong. |
| An access team that tracks no-shows and online booking | Without owners, modules get turned on and the numbers never move. |
| A decision on whether intake and payments stay in another tool | Relatient is weaker than Phreesia at handling intake through payment. |
| Time to map locations and providers before messaging goes live | Texts about the wrong site are a fast way to lose patient trust. |
| Staff time to answer patient replies | Self-scheduling without anyone answering leaves conversations hanging. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Track no-shows and online booking by specialty | The value shows when more patients book online. |
| Keep the quote clear on which modules you need (waitlist, self-scheduling, outreach) | Sales decks blur which items you need. |
| Estimate cost at your visit volume, not from a return claim on a sales slide | Several module fees add up quietly. |
| Coordinate with whatever tool owns intake and payments | Patients hate doing the same tasks for two vendors. |
| Try a few locations before sending messages everywhere | Template errors are cheaper to fix when you are small. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You mainly need intake through payment in one system. | |
| You are a solo practice that only needs the text reminders in your EHR. | |
| You are looking for a full telehealth EHR. | |
| Nobody will staff the EHR schedule link and template mapping. | |
| No access owner will own booking and no-show metrics. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | From signing to kickoff | 2-5 weeks to map schedules, pick modules, and test at a few locations |
| 2 | From kickoff to first use | 6-14 weeks for reminders and self-scheduling at the most important sites |
| 3 | From first use to steady results | 2-5 months of building online booking and reducing no-shows |
Leadership
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.