# Records on Time Alternatives: 11 Tools Compared > Nine Records on Time alternatives in Long-tail / Boutique, compared on turnaround, pricing model and published rate. Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/alternatives/records-on-time/ --- 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/) › — Records on Time alternatives RECORDS ON TIME ALTERNATIVES ## Records on Time alternatives, compared on what each vendor actually publishes Records on Time publishes eight of the eight facts a buyer needs, a rate and a turnaround among them. 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 Records on Time publishes Records on Time is profiled in the Content Hub under Long-tail / Boutique. The fit it publishes: Law Firms Needing CMS-Integrated Fast Record Retrieval. On the work itself it publishes a processing model (AI/EHR Automation + Human Retrieval (hybrid)) and a human-QA position (Included (human staff for non-EHR providers)). Commercially it is one of the more forthcoming vendors here: $49.95 per record request (no separate provider fees), with a published turnaround of Same-day for EHR-connected providers (400,000+ providers); ~21 days average for traditional retrieval. Processing model — AI/EHR Automation + Human Retrieval (hybrid) Human QA — Included (human staff for non-EHR providers) Typical turnaround — Same-day for EHR-connected providers (400,000+ providers); ~21 days average for traditional retrieval Pricing model — Flat per-request fee Indicative cost — $49.95 per record request (no separate provider fees) Export formats — Delivered directly into case management system (CMS) Best for — Law Firms Needing CMS-Integrated Fast Record Retrieval Customer satisfaction — No public reviews found #### Read the full Records on Time profile Medical record retrieval; EHR-integrated same-day delivery (400,000+ connected providers); Traditional retrieval; CMS integrations (Neos, Needles, Sma [Records on Time in the Content Hub →](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/records-on-time/) Category: Long-tail / Boutique. 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 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Records on Time | AI/EHR Automation + Human Retrieval (hybrid) | Same-day for EHR-connected providers (400,000+ providers); ~21 days average for traditional retrieval | Flat per-request fee | $49.95 per record request (no separate provider fees) | 8/8 | | LMT Glocal Services | AI + Human QA (workflow automation with MD-verified reviews) | Not published | Not published | Not published | 4/8 | | Medsum Labs, Inc. | Human Review + Multi-Tiered QA Process (handpicked medical reviewers) | Not published | Not published | Not published | 5/8 | | Medical Legal Spider, Inc. | AI + Human Review (AttestaAI platform plus 300+ human document reviewers) | Not published | Quote-based (advertised savings tiers, not fixed rates) | Not published | 5/8 | | Medical Research Consultants | Human-only / Manual Review (record retrieval + nurse review) | Not published | Quote-based (scalable, cost-effective per case size) | Not published | 5/8 | | Datalyst | Not published | 24 Hours to 2 Weeks (flexible, per client need) | Quote-based | Not published | 5/8 | | Eternity Paralegal Services | Outsourced Human Team (offshore, India-based paralegals) | Not published | Not published | Not published | 4/8 | | TheMedSum | Human-only / Manual Review (multiple-review QA) | Not published | Quote-based | Not published | 5/8 | | Case Chronology | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published | 1/8 | | Bolster Legal | Outsourced Human Team (offshore, India-based paralegals) | Overnight (12-hour US-India workflow) | Contracted (hourly, part-time or full-time plans) | 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/records-on-time/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/lmt-glocal-services/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/medsum-labs-inc/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/medical-legal-spider-inc/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/medical-research-consultants/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/datalyst/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/eternity-paralegal-services/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/themedsum/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/case-chronology/) [](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/bolster-legal/) 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. ### Records on Time alternatives: common questions By section and category, LMT Glocal Services and Medsum Labs, Inc. are the nearest of the nine: all sit in the same software half of the Content Hub. The table compares each on the same eight published rows, and the published-rate column is usually where they separate. Yes: $49.95 per record request (no separate provider fees). That already puts it ahead of most of this market; only 57 of the 326 profiled vendors publish an indicative cost. Of the nine alternatives here, zero publish a number of their own. Its published turnaround: Same-day for EHR-connected providers (400,000+ providers); ~21 days average for traditional retrieval. Hold every vendor in the table to the same question, because a vendor that will not put a number on speed is quoting it case by case. For the record-review work, yes. Medrecords AI reads PDFs, scans, handwriting and DICOM imaging, links every line back to its source page, and prices in public: ten cents a page on Self-Service, duplicates free. A human stays the decision-maker. Each row is read out of that vendor's Content Hub profile, which cites the public page every value came from. Where a vendor publishes nothing for a row, the table says "Not published" rather than guessing; the profile records the search that came up empty. ### 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-records-on-time)