Heidi vs Lyrebird
Both are Melbourne-founded ambient AI scribes used widely across Australian general practice and allied health. We don't sell either — here's what a clinic evaluating them should actually check.
Heidi Health and Lyrebird Health are both AI medical scribe products, not voice agents — they sit inside the consult, not on the phone line. That's a different job from the CAPR voice framework we use elsewhere on this site, and we're upfront about that distinction rather than force-fitting a scorecard that wasn't built for scribes.
Both are Australian-founded, both are used by GPs, specialists and allied health clinicians across AU, and both make ambient-listening and note-drafting claims. What follows is a structural comparison of the things a practice manager or clinical director should actually check before shortlisting either — sourced from each vendor's own public site and documentation. Anything not publicly confirmed is flagged as such; verify directly with the vendor before you sign.
Scorecard — Heidi vs Lyrebird
Heidi publishes privacy/security information on its site; specific storage region commitments should be confirmed directly with current documentation as they can change.
Lyrebird markets itself as Australian-built with a stated focus on local clinician workflows; confirm current hosting/region details on their trust page before relying on this for a compliance file.
Heidi lists integrations with common AU practice software on its site; exact breadth and depth (read vs write-back) varies by plan — verify against your specific PMS.
Lyrebird also lists PMS/EHR integrations publicly; same caveat — confirm write-back vs copy-paste workflow for your PMS before assuming parity with Heidi.
Heidi supports ambient in-consult listening per its product pages; confirm current behaviour for offline/asynchronous dictation if that's a requirement.
Lyrebird similarly positions around ambient, in-consult capture; check current docs for any post-visit or async dictation mode.
Heidi markets broad specialty templates (GP, allied health, specialists) per its site; template depth per specialty should be trialled, not assumed from marketing copy.
Lyrebird also claims multi-specialty template coverage; same advice — pilot with your own specialty's real consult types before committing.
Heidi's current pricing tiers are published on its own site and change; we don't restate figures here — check heidihealth.com directly for current plans.
Lyrebird's pricing is likewise published only on its own site; check lyrebirdhealth.com directly rather than relying on any third-party summary, including this one.
Heidi publishes a privacy policy addressing Australian Privacy Principles obligations; a practice's own APP 8 cross-border disclosure assessment should still be done independently — see our companion piece below.
Lyrebird likewise publishes privacy documentation; same recommendation — don't take a vendor's self-assessment as your practice's compliance sign-off.
Publicly, ambient scribes are generally positioned as documentation tools rather than diagnostic software; whether TGA's software-as-medical-device guidance applies to any specific scribe feature is a question for direct vendor confirmation and your own regulatory read, not a marketing claim.
Same position applies — verify directly with Lyrebird whether any feature set (e.g. clinical coding suggestions) could shift SaMD classification, rather than assuming 'documentation tool' covers every feature indefinitely.
Heidi's product model, per its site, keeps the clinician reviewing and editing the drafted note before it enters the record — standard practice across the ambient scribe category.
Lyrebird follows the same clinician-in-the-loop review pattern before notes are finalised, per its product documentation.
What we'd pick for an ANZ healthcare network
- — Your practice already runs on a PMS Heidi documents native integration with — confirm current connector status directly.
- — You want the broader of the two on specialty template count as marketed — validate with a trial on your own consult types.
- — Your team prioritises an AU-founded vendor with a stated focus on local clinician workflows and wants to weigh that in procurement.
- — Lyrebird's specific PMS connector already matches your stack — confirm directly.
We don't score scribes on the CAPR voice framework — different tool, different job. Both Heidi and Lyrebird are credible, Melbourne-founded ambient scribes with clinician-in-the-loop review built in. The differentiators that actually matter — PMS write-back depth, current pricing, and your practice's own APP 8 and TGA read — are all things you verify directly with each vendor's current documentation, not from any third-party comparison including this one. Run a 2-week side-by-side trial with your own consults before committing either way.
FAQ
Is Heidi or Lyrebird 'more compliant' with the Australian Privacy Act?
Neither vendor's marketing claim of Privacy Act alignment substitutes for your own assessment. Both publish privacy policies; your practice still needs to confirm APP 8 cross-border disclosure handling, subcontractor/hosting chains, and your own patient consent language. See our companion piece on evaluating AI scribes for Privacy Act fit.
Are Heidi and Lyrebird TGA-registered medical devices?
We're not aware of public TGA registration claims from either vendor positioning their core product as a registered medical device — both are generally marketed as clinical documentation tools. Confirm current classification and any feature-specific caveats directly with each vendor and, if material to your practice's risk position, with TGA guidance on clinical decision support software.
Do either integrate natively with Best Practice or Medical Director?
Both vendors list AU PMS integrations on their sites; the depth (read-only copy vs true write-back) and the specific list of supported systems changes over time. Confirm current integration status directly with each vendor against your specific PMS version before shortlisting.
Can I run both in a side-by-side trial?
Yes — this is the standard way practices evaluate ambient scribes. Both vendors offer trial access per their public sites; run the same set of real (de-identified where required) consult types through each before deciding.
Why doesn't Cadence score this like the voice vendor comparisons?
The CAPR framework was built to evaluate telephony/voice agents against ANZ healthcare call-handling requirements — latency, PMS booking write-back, triage safety rails. An in-consult ambient scribe is a different product category solving a different problem (clinical note drafting, not call handling), so scoring it on the same rubric would misrepresent both tools.
Does Cadence sell or resell Heidi or Lyrebird?
No. Cadence is a vendor-neutral evaluator focused on AI voice agents for ANZ healthcare networks. We reference scribe vendors here because buyers ask, not because we distribute either product.
Want the picked-for-you answer in 2 weeks?
The 2-week paid Diagnostic runs the full 8-domain CAPR scorecard against your network's call profile, PMS and compliance posture. You leave with a named pick.