Assort Health is a capable product aimed at a specific buyer. This page is about who that buyer is, and what to do if it isn't you.
The short answer
The main alternatives to Assort Health are Prosper AI, Infinitus, SuperDial, and Agentman. All four overlap on patient or payer voice; they differ mostly in who they sell to and what they will tell you before a call.
As of 7 August 2026, none of Assort, Prosper, Infinitus or SuperDial publishes a rate on its own site. Agentman publishes $10 per hour of call time.
For a small practice the decisive question usually isn't which product is better. It's scale: several vendors in this category have a minimum, and a minimum counted in providers decides whether you are a customer before price ever enters the conversation.
What Assort Health actually is
From their own site, checked 7 August 2026: an "AI voice agent for healthcare" running on "a platform trained on 200M+ interactions to handle the entire patient journey, from referrals and scheduling to intake and follow-up."
What they state, and what's genuinely substantial:
- Broad workflow coverage — 24/7 scheduling, proactive outreach, routing and triage, insurance and eligibility verification, intake, fax and referral automation, payment resolution, waitlist management, medication refills, and lab requests.
- Deep EHR integration across "15+ platforms including the industry's most robust Athena integration."
- Scale — "thousands of providers across 23+ specialties," including FQHCs, health systems, and multi-specialty practices.
If you are a multi-provider group and the patient phone line is your bottleneck, Assort belongs on your list. We would rather say that than pretend a serious competitor isn't one.
What they don't publish, and the quote we received
Assort publishes no pricing. The primary call to action is "Book a demo," with a phone number as the secondary path. They sell annual contracts.
Beyond that, we can only report our own experience, so here it is precisely.
In July 2026 we sent a sales inquiry to Assort Health. The reply stated that a $75,000 annual minimum commitment would be required before an initial call could be scheduled, and that the minimum reflected a floor of five providers.
That second detail is what makes the first one legible, and it says two separate things:
- A rate. $75,000 across five providers is $15,000 per provider per year, roughly $1,250 per provider per month. That is a real number and worth knowing before an evaluation rather than after one.
- A floor. The smallest engagement quoted to us started at five providers. A practice with fewer than five is not being quoted a high price — it is outside what was on offer.
The second is what a dollar figure alone would have hidden, and it is the more useful fact. When a vendor gives you a total, ask what it is a total of. A minimum expressed in dollars reads as a price. Expressed in providers, it tells you whether you are the customer at all.
This is one email we received, in our situation — not Assort's pricing policy. Quotes in this category vary by practice size, specialty, and site count, and we have no way to know what another prospect would be told. We publish it because a first-hand quote is the only kind of pricing information available about a company that publishes none, and because knowing a minimum exists is worth more to a small practice than the number attached to it.
The alternatives, compared
Each row reflects what the vendor publishes on its own site, checked 7 August 2026. Re-check before relying on it; these pages change.
| Vendor | Who it targets | Publishes a rate? | Contract shape | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assort Health | Practices, specialty groups, health systems, FQHCs | No — "Book a demo" | Annual | Patient voice, scheduling, intake, referrals |
| Prosper AI | Practices and outpatient groups | No — no pricing page at all | Not published | Patient and payer voice |
| Infinitus | Payers, pharma, large provider orgs | No — platform + usage fees, no figure | Annual, multi-year discounts | Payer voice, benefit verification |
| SuperDial | RCM companies, health systems, payers | No — "Book a Demo" | Not published | Payer operations across phone, portals, APIs, EDI |
| Agentman | Independent and specialty practices | Yes — $10/hour of call time | Pay-as-you-go, no minimum | Voice plus eligibility, prior auth, inbox triage |
Prosper AI
The closest comparison to Assort by buyer: both target practices and specialty groups with patient-facing voice. Prosper runs specialty-specific pages across a dozen-plus specialties and states 80-plus integrations.
They publish no rate either — getprosper.ai/pricing returns a 404 — and their own blog says of their pricing: "Pricing is not public, so early budgeting requires a sales conversation." We wrote about them in more depth in Prosper AI alternatives.
Choose them if your specialty is on their list and you want patient and payer calls in one product.
Infinitus
Infinitus is a "safety-first healthcare voice AI platform" automating calls to patients, payers and providers, naming Fortune 50 clients including Carelon, UnitedHealthcare, Humana, CVS, Cigna and Aetna.
Their pricing page publishes no rate, describing "annual platform and license fees combined with usage" with discounts tied to multi-year contracts and monthly minimums.
Choose them if you are a payer, pharma manufacturer, or large provider organization. Not if you are a small practice — the model is built around annual platform fees.
SuperDial
SuperDial is "the enterprise AI platform for payer operations," with "voice-first agents that work across every payer interface—phone, portals, APIs, and EDI."
That last point is the most interesting thing here, and it's the same conclusion we reached: the phone is often the worst available way to get data that exists electronically. No rate published; CTA is "Book a Demo."
Choose them if you are an RCM company or health system automating payer outreach at scale. Not if you need patient-facing calls.
Agentman
Ours, so weigh it accordingly.
Voice is $10 for each hour of call time — pay-as-you-go, billed by the minute, no minimum and no annual commitment — or $1,500/provider/month flat for unlimited calls. Published at /medman/pricing, no form.
The structural difference is scope: alongside voice we run eligibility at $0.50/check, prior authorization at $25/submission, and inbox triage at $225/provider/month.
The point isn't the count of agents — it's that they see each other's work. A voice agent that can read the fax that arrived this morning answers a patient's question; one that can't says "I don't see anything about that." Which handoffs break when agents come from different vendors is worth thinking through before the first purchase, because that is when you still have leverage.
Choose someone else if you are a large multi-specialty group wanting the deepest patient-voice workflows and can absorb an annual commitment. At that size, an annual contract may well price better per provider than usage billing. We are built for practices that want to start small and stop if it doesn't work.
Annual contract vs. pay-as-you-go
This is the real fork for a small practice, and it deserves an honest accounting rather than a pitch.
An annual contract fixes your commitment before you have production evidence. That's why vendors prefer it and why minimums exist. It isn't inherently bad — at volume, annual commitments frequently carry a lower effective rate, and a vendor with predictable revenue can staff implementation properly.
Pay-as-you-go bills for what you use. You can run a small volume, measure whether it worked, and stop. It usually costs more per unit, and that premium is what you pay for optionality.
The question is which risk you'd rather carry:
| Annual contract | Pay-as-you-go | |
|---|---|---|
| Rate at volume | Usually lower | Usually higher |
| If it doesn't fit | You've paid for the year | You stop |
| Evidence before commitment | Demo and references | Your own production data |
| Best for | Groups that have already validated the workflow | Practices testing whether it works at all |
If you have already run a voice agent successfully and know your call volume, an annual contract may be the better economic deal. If you're finding out whether this category works for your practice, paying for a year in advance means buying the answer before you have the question.
Before you evaluate any of them
Count where the time actually goes. A week of honest logging beats any comparison table, including this one.
If the phone genuinely dominates, price voice agents — Assort and Prosper both deserve a look. But in most practices we have worked with, phone time is one of several sinks:
- Eligibility verification, where the 2023 CAQH Index prices a single manual check at $7.97 to the provider, while an electronic X12 270/271 check costs a fraction of that with nobody on hold
- Inbound faxes and portal messages that must be read and routed before anyone can act
- Prior authorization, which CMS's 2024 interoperability rule is moving onto a fixed electronic timetable
- Denial follow-up, which is queue work rather than call work
A voice agent solves the most audible problem. Whether it solves the most expensive one is a separate question, and worth a week of counting before an annual commitment.
The four questions to ask every vendor
Ask all of them, of everyone on your list, including us:
- Is hold time billed, or only connected time? On payer calls this dominates cost.
- Is there a minimum — and what unit is it counted in? Dollars, providers, sites, or calls. This is the question that would have saved us a round trip.
- What does a failed or dead-end call cost? Payer calls fail often.
- Is there a setup or onboarding fee?
Get it in writing. Our guide to verifying vendor claims applies the same test to automation percentages — and to our numbers too.
For context on why this is so much work: when we checked 338 healthcare vendors in August 2026, 83% of the sites we could read gated the product behind a demo or contact form. Assort is not unusual. The norm is the problem.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the alternatives to Assort Health?
For healthcare voice agents the closest alternatives are Prosper AI, Infinitus, SuperDial, and Agentman. Prosper targets practices and outpatient groups with specialty-specific workflows. Infinitus and SuperDial sell to enterprise buyers — payers, pharma, RCM companies, and health systems. Agentman differs in scope, running voice alongside eligibility, prior authorization, and inbox triage. As of 7 August 2026, Agentman is the only one of the five publishing a rate on its own site.
How much does Assort Health cost?
Assort does not publish pricing; their site directs you to book a demo. We can only report our own experience. In July 2026 a sales inquiry we sent came back stating that a $75,000 annual minimum commitment was required before an initial call could be scheduled, and that the minimum reflected a floor of five providers. That works out to about $15,000 per provider per year. That is the quote we received in our situation, not Assort's pricing policy — quotes vary by practice size, specialty, and site count.
Does Assort Health have a minimum practice size?
In the quote we received in July 2026, yes — a five-provider floor. We cannot speak to whether that applies to every prospect, and Assort publishes no minimum on its site. But it is worth asking directly if you have fewer than five providers, because a minimum expressed in providers rather than dollars determines whether you are in scope at all, and that is a faster thing to learn in the first email than in the third meeting.
Is Assort Health a good choice?
For a multi-provider group or health system that wants patient-facing voice across scheduling, intake, and referrals, it is a serious option. They state deep EHR integration across 15-plus platforms, coverage of 23-plus specialties, and a platform trained on a large volume of interactions. The friction is that you cannot see pricing without entering a sales process, and the contracts are annual.
What is the difference between an annual contract and pay-as-you-go?
An annual contract fixes your commitment before you have production evidence, which is why vendors like it and why minimums exist. Pay-as-you-go bills for what you use, so a practice can run a small volume, measure whether it worked, and stop if it did not. The tradeoff is real in both directions: annual contracts often carry lower effective rates at volume, while usage billing costs more per unit but removes the risk of paying for a year of something that did not fit.
Should a small practice buy a healthcare voice agent at all?
Only after counting where staff time actually goes. Spend a week logging it. If the phone genuinely dominates, a voice agent is worth pricing. In many practices, though, phone time is one of several sinks alongside eligibility verification, inbound faxes and portal messages, and prior authorization. Voice solves the most audible problem, which is not always the most expensive one.
How do I compare healthcare voice AI vendors on price when most publish nothing?
Ask every vendor the same four questions and get the answers in writing: is hold time billed or only connected time, is there a minimum and what unit is it counted in, what does a failed or dead-end call cost, and is there a setup fee. The unit the minimum is counted in matters most. A minimum in dollars reads as a price; a minimum in providers or sites tells you whether a practice your size is a customer.
Where we stand
We publish our rates and have no minimum, because we think a practice should be able to try something small and stop if it doesn't work. $10 per hour of call time for voice, $0.50 per eligibility check, no annual commitment and no demo required to see either.
If you're a fifteen-provider group with a validated workflow and the phone is your bottleneck, go take Assort's call. They may be the better fit, and an annual contract at your scale may price better than usage billing.
If you have fewer than five providers and you're trying to work out whether any of this helps, start with a week of counting — then buy the smallest thing that tests your answer.
