# InQuery Alternatives: 11 Tools Compared (2026) > Nine InQuery alternatives for claims and litigation record review, compared on turnaround, human QA, pricing model and published rate. Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/alternatives/inquery/ --- 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/) › — InQuery alternatives INQUERY ALTERNATIVES ## InQuery alternatives, compared on what each vendor actually publishes InQuery publishes five of the eight facts a buyer needs, including a two to six hour turnaround, but no pricing model and no rate. The nine alternatives below are compared on the same eight rows. Of the eleven tools in the table, six publish a rate you can act on. 11 tools compared — ·Eight rows each — ·Vendor claims captured 13 August 2026 ### What InQuery publishes InQuery sells a service, not a seat: its own site says people check the work, and it quotes two to six hours on a standard three to five hundred page personal injury file. That combination is rare and it is the reason adjusters shortlist it. What the site never states is what any of it costs. Desks that need a number for a budget line, or that would rather run the file themselves, end up comparing it against the nine tools below. Processing model — AI + Human QA Human QA — Included ('People check the work') Typical turnaround — 2-6 hours (standard 300-500 page PI case) Pricing model — Not published Indicative cost — Not published Export formats — Not published Best for — High-severity, multi-source claims needing rapid fact extraction Customer satisfaction — No public reviews found #### Read the full InQuery profile Service provider in medical-legal record review. [InQuery in the Content Hub →](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/services/inquery/) Category: Insurance / Legal / TPA. 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 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | InQuery | AI + Human QA | 2-6 hours (standard 300-500 page PI case) | Not published | Not published | 5/8 | | Wisedocs | AI + Human QA (expert clinician oversight) | Hours; case study cites turnaround cut from 14 days to 2 | Not published | Not published | 5/8 | | SiftMed | 100% AI | Under 30 minutes average per claim file | Not published | Not published | 5/8 | | DigitalOwl | 100% AI (self-serve medical record review) | Delivery within 24 hours (self-serve) | Subscription (self-serve monthly plan, capped by page volume) | Not published | 6/8 | | InPractice AI | 100% AI (human-editable output) | Minutes (processes ~3 seconds per page) | Per-Page (pay-as-you-go credits, no subscription) | $0.05/page; 4 pricing editions from $100 to $5,000 | 8/8 | | Superinsight.ai | 100% AI | ~15-60 minutes per report; as fast as ~1 hour per case | Per-credit / subscription tiers | $25-$80 per credit; $28-$54 per medical chronology | 7/8 | | MediScan | 100% AI | Under 15 minutes for 1,000+ pages; 4-8 days reduced to 4 hours | Month-to-month subscription | Published claim. Fully transparent, published, page-volume-tiered monthly subscription: Starter: $169/mo, 1,200… | 7/8 | | Dodonai | AI + Optional Human Managed Services (add-on) | Minutes (summaries); seconds (deposition summaries) | Usage-based subscription (credits/pages) | $25-$83/mo (4,800-120,000 credits/yr); $0.008-$0.06/page | 7/8 | | OctopusLM | 100% AI | Not published | Per-page (pay-as-you-go) or subscription | $0.10/page pay-as-you-go; $250/month unlimited | 7/8 | | Parrot | 100% AI (deposition transcription and medical-record summarization) | Not published | Quote-based (all-inclusive pricing, contact sales) | 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/services/inquery/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/wisedocs/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/services/siftmed/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/digitalowl/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/inpractice-ai/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/superinsight-ai/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/mediscan/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/dodonai/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/octopuslm/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/parrot/) Of the 11 tools above, **6** publish an indicative cost. Across all 318 vendors profiled in the Content Hub, 53 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. ### InQuery alternatives: common questions On shape, Wisedocs: it also pairs AI with human review, publishes clinician QA on every document, and also declines to publish a price. If the point of switching is a rate you can budget, InPractice AI publishes five cents a page and OctopusLM publishes ten cents a page or $250 a month unlimited. No, and not a pricing model either. Both rows read "not published" in the profile, which is a finding rather than a gap in our research. Of the nine alternatives on this page, five publish a number you can act on without a sales call. Its site states two to six hours for a standard three hundred to five hundred page personal injury case. That is one of the more specific turnaround claims in the whole corpus, and it is recorded in the profile with the date it was captured. For the review half, yes: it reads the file, builds the chronology and cites every line back to its source page, at a rate from ten cents down to as low as five cents a page. It does not retrieve records from providers and it does not decide claims. Your reviewer does that. 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-inquery) ### More alternatives - [**LawPro.ai alternatives, compared on what each vendor actually publishes** — Nine LawPro.ai alternatives for personal injury record review and drafting, compared on turnaround, human QA…](https://medrecords.ai/alternatives/lawpro-ai/) - [**MediScan alternatives, compared on what each vendor actually publishes** — Nine MediScan alternatives for IME, QME and med-legal record review, compared on turnaround, human QA, pricing…](https://medrecords.ai/alternatives/mediscan/) - [**Parambil alternatives, compared on what each vendor actually publishes** — Nine Parambil alternatives for mass tort and complex litigation record review, compared on turnaround, human…](https://medrecords.ai/alternatives/parambil/) - [**Parrot alternatives, compared on what each vendor actually publishes** — Nine Parrot alternatives for AI deposition and medical record summaries, compared on turnaround, export…](https://medrecords.ai/alternatives/parrot/) - [**RiskAngle alternatives, compared on what each vendor actually publishes** — Nine RiskAngle alternatives for legal and insurance record review, compared on turnaround, human QA, pricing…](https://medrecords.ai/alternatives/riskangle/) - [**SiftMed alternatives, compared on what each vendor actually publishes** — Nine SiftMed alternatives for claims, IME and legal record review, compared on turnaround, human QA, pricing…](https://medrecords.ai/alternatives/siftmed/)