# Clareto Alternatives: 11 Tools Compared

> Nine Clareto alternatives for medical record retrieval and underwriting review, compared on turnaround, pricing and published rate.

Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/alternatives/clareto/

---
New — **Missing Records Detection:** flags every visit, provider, and date missing from the file. [See how →](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/)
[Home](https://medrecords.ai/) ›[Alternatives](https://medrecords.ai/alternatives/) › — Clareto alternatives
CLARETO ALTERNATIVES

## Clareto alternatives, compared on what each vendor actually publishes

Clareto no longer operates standalone; its site now redirects to MIB Group, which absorbed the product. The nine alternatives below are compared on the same eight rows: processing model, human QA, turnaround, pricing model, indicative cost, export formats, fit and rating. Of the eleven tools in the table, two publish a rate you can act on.

11 tools compared — ·Eight rows each — ·Vendor claims captured 13 August 2026

### What Clareto publishes

Clareto no longer exists as a standalone company: clareto.com redirects to MIB Group, and the product lives on as MIB's EMD and RiskRighter offerings for life-insurance underwriting. A Clareto search is really a search for that successor and for the retrieval-and-consolidation market around it. The successor publishes strong claims, most records released in under a day and roughly half the cost of a traditional APS, but no rate card.

Processing model — Not published
Human QA — Included (successor MIB "RiskRighter" offers human-prepared EHR summaries)
Typical turnaround — Successor product states majority of records released in under a day, "90% faster than the average traditional APS"
Pricing model — Not published
Indicative cost — Successor product claims ~50% average per-record savings vs. traditional APS retrieval
Export formats — Successor product supports PDF, HTML, XML, JSON (Medical Data Consolidation service)
Best for — Life insurance underwriting requiring rapid multi-source medical record consolidation
Customer satisfaction — No public reviews found

#### Read the full Clareto profile

Health information exchange providing medical record retrieval services to the life insurance industry (APS/EHR retrieval)

[Clareto in the Content Hub →](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/clareto/)

Category: Insurance Underwriting & Payer Chart Review. Vendor claims captured 13 August 2026. Rows marked not published were searched for and not found on the vendor site.

### 11 tools, four questions each

Processing model, turnaround, pricing model, published rate. Follow any vendor name for the full eight-row profile. A gold tag means the vendor does not publish that fact, which is itself worth knowing before a call.

| Vendor | Processing model | Typical turnaround | Pricing model | Indicative cost | Published |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Clareto | Not published | Successor product states majority of records released in under a day, "90% faster than the average traditional… | Not published | Successor product claims ~50% average per-record savings vs. traditional APS retrieval | 6/8 |
| MIB Group | Automated Data Aggregation (industry information exchange) | 2-4 Day Flexible Waiting Period before EHR consolidation | Not published | Not published | 5/8 |
| Anterior | AI + Human Escalation (never auto-denies) | ~182 seconds average time-to-approval (prior auth) | Not published | Not published | 5/8 |
| Sixfold | 100% AI (underwriting document analysis and risk scoring) | Not published | Contracted/Volume-based (enterprise, by submission volume) | Not published | 5/8 |
| RGA (AURA Next) | AI + Workflow Automation (automated underwriting decisioning) | Weeks reduced to Minutes (per case study) | Not published | Not published | 5/8 |
| Munich Re Automation Solutions (ALLFINANZ) | AI + Workflow Automation (rules-engine underwriting platform) | Not published | Subscription/SaaS (ALLFINANZ SPARK) | Not published | 5/8 |
| Inovalon | AI + Human QA (NLP/ML with routed manual review) | Not published | Not published | Not published | 4/8 |
| EvolutionIQ | AI + Human ('AI-native. Human-centric.') | Not published | Not published | Not published | 4/8 |
| Ontellus | Human-managed retrieval + proprietary technology platform | Most requests completed in under 30 business days | Not published | Not published | 5/8 |
| American Retrieval Company | Human-managed retrieval + copy-service integrations | Average turnaround approximately 15 days | Flat/upfront fee with no-fee guarantee on failures | Not published | 6/8 |
| Medrecords AI | AI drafts, a human decides. Every line cites its source page. | Minutes to hours per file | Pay per page, no subscription (Self-Service); annual licence for AI Enablement and On-Prem | from 10¢ to as low as 5¢ a page, duplicates free | 8/8 |

[](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/clareto/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/mib-group/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/anterior/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/sixfold/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/rga-aura-next/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/munich-re-automation-solutions-allfinanz/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/inovalon/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/evolutioniq/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/ontellus/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/services/american-retrieval-company/)
Of the 11 tools above, **2** publish an indicative cost. Across all 326 vendors profiled in the Content Hub, 57 do. Every claim was captured on 13 August 2026 from the vendor's own site; nothing here is a Medrecords AI rating of another vendor.

HOW TO READ THE TABLE

### Four questions that decide this, and one that does not

Feature lists in this market converge within a quarter. What separates these tools is commercial and procedural, and most of it is visible before you take a call.

- **Who signs** Some tools produce a draft your own reviewer signs off. Others include reviewers of their own. Neither is better; they are different liabilities and different price points.
- **What the meter counts** Per page, per file, per user, per credit or per year. A seat licence and a per-page rate diverge fast once one file gets large.
- **Whether output is checkable** A summary you cannot trace back to a page is a summary you have to re-read the file to trust. Ask what a citation points at.
- **Where the records go** Whose cloud, whose BAA, whose keys. This is the question procurement asks and the one vendor sites answer least often.
- **Not: the model** Which foundation model sits underneath changes quarterly and tells you nothing about whether the output holds up on a file like yours.

### Where Medrecords AI fits, and where it does not

The row above is ours, held to the same eight questions. So is this.

#### What it does

Reads the file you already have: PDFs, scans, handwriting, the DICOM imaging rather than only the radiologist's report. Removes duplicates, flags wrong-patient pages, builds the chronology, and links every line back to the page it came from.

#### What it costs

Ten cents a page on Self-Service, duplicates free, no seat licence and no subscription. AI Enablement and On-Prem are annual licences. All three are listed on the [plans page](https://medrecords.ai/plans/) , in numbers, without a call.

#### What it will not do

It does not retrieve records from providers, sign an opinion, score a case, or decide a claim. It drafts and cites; a qualified human decides. Any vendor promising otherwise is describing a liability, not a feature.

### Clareto alternatives: common questions

The literal answer is MIB Group, which acquired Clareto and sells the successor EMD and RiskRighter products. Beyond that, Ontellus and American Retrieval retrieve records for insurers, and Sixfold, Vatica Health and RGA's AURA Next automate parts of underwriting review.

Not as a standalone vendor. Its domain redirects to MIB Group, and the capability is sold as MIB's EMD and RiskRighter products. The claims in this table marked as successor-product claims come from those pages, with the capture date recorded in the profile.

A savings claim, not a rate: roughly 50 percent average per-record savings versus traditional APS retrieval. There is no rate card. Of the nine alternatives on this page, zero publish a number.

No. Medrecords AI does not retrieve records from providers or run health-information-exchange connections; that was Clareto's job and is now MIB's. The overlap starts after retrieval: once records are in hand, Medrecords AI consolidates, deduplicates and summarizes them with a citation on every line.

Each row is read out of that vendor's Content Hub profile, which records what the vendor published on its own site at the capture date. Where a row says "not published", that is a finding, not an omission: we looked and the vendor does not state it. Follow any vendor name to see the full profile.

### Run one of your own files against the table

Send a real file. You get the chronology, the duplicate report and the citations back, and you can judge the output rather than the marketing.

[Test a file](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=alternatives-clareto)