Skip to content
FonteumThe Graph

By use case

Exclusion & monitoring (self-serve)Free roster screen — no accountExclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & provider-data enrichmentAudit evidence & defensible programsProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligence

By buyer

Compliance & riskDevelopers & AI teams

By industry

HealthcareProviders & facilitiesFederal contractingSAM · USASpending · FAPIIS

The capability layer

APIREST + bulk accessMCP serverCallable by AI agentsFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAttestation & audit packReconciliationSource-vs-source diffsEntity graphSnapshotsPoint-in-time, bitemporal

The differentiator

Coverage & sourcesThe catalogFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareFacility qualityBrowse all datasets →
Research

The dev on-ramp

DocsAPI referenceMCP — connect your agentOne-paste installFHIR sandboxLive API surfaceQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrations
Pricing
Sign inFree roster screen →Get a signed certificate →

Solutions

Exclusion & monitoring (self-serve)Exclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & provider-data enrichmentAudit evidence & defensible programsProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligenceCompliance & riskDevelopers & AI teamsHealthcareFederal contracting

Platform

APIMCP serverFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAttestation & audit packReconciliationEntity graphSnapshots

Data

Coverage & sourcesFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareBrowse all datasets →
Research

Developers

DocsAPI referenceMCP — connect your agentFHIR sandboxQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrations
Pricing
Sign inFree roster screen →Get a signed certificate →
Side-by-Side Comparison

Doximity vs Vitals: Side-by-Side Comparison

Doximity is a physician professional network; Vitals is a consumer doctor-rating site. They serve entirely different audiences and purposes, though both index provider profiles. The comparison matters most for teams deciding which platform's data to rely on for provider identity or quality signal.

Dimension by dimension

Doximity vs Vitals, across 8 dimensions

DimensionDoximityVitals
Data typePhysician professional network — credentials, peer connections, NPI cross-referenceConsumer ratings — patient reviews, provider self-submitted profiles
Coverage~80% of U.S. physicians, 2M+ total clinicians (publicly disclosed)~1 million+ provider profiles
Refresh cadenceSelf-maintained by clinicians— (not publicly disclosed)
License / CostFree for clinicians; pharma/industry — pricing not publicFree for patients; provider plans — pricing not public
API accessPartner EHR integrations; not a public open APINo public API
Source provenanceNPI cross-reference for identity; self-attested credentialsConsumer-submitted reviews; field-level provenance not documented
Primary use caseClinician networking, referrals, pharma outreachPatient discovery, review reading
PricingFree for clinicians; industry licensing — pricing not publicFree for patients; provider plans — pricing not public

Cells marked “—” indicate values not publicly documented by the respective platform. No data has been estimated or fabricated.

Honest fit

Which platform fits your team

When to use Doximity

Use Doximity when reaching clinicians directly — for referral workflows, pharma outreach, or professional credential lookups. Doximity's NPI cross-reference makes it useful for identity resolution in professional contexts.

https://www.doximity.com →

When to use Vitals

Use Vitals for consumer-facing applications that need patient review sentiment on a provider. It is a smaller platform than Healthgrades but covers the same review-aggregation use case.

https://www.vitals.com →

FAQ

Common questions

Is Doximity or Vitals more useful for provider identity data?
Doximity cross-references clinician profiles with NPI, making it more reliable for identity than Vitals, which relies on self-submitted profiles. For the authoritative federal identity record, CMS NPPES is the primary source — publicly downloadable, weekly-refreshed, and free.
Can data from Doximity or Vitals be used in AI pipelines?
Neither platform publishes a public open API or bulk data export. For AI and data pipelines that need provenance-grade provider records, federal sources (NPPES, PECOS, OIG LEIE) are the appropriate inputs — they are open, citable, and carry no redistribution restrictions.
Do Doximity or Vitals publish their data methodology?
Neither platform publishes a formal, versioned methodology document for how provider data is collected, resolved, or scored. Federal sources like CMS NPPES publish their data dictionaries and collection methodology publicly, which allows independent confirmation and reproduction.
Which platform covers more providers?
Doximity reports coverage of approximately 80% of U.S. physicians and 2M+ total clinicians across professions. Vitals is smaller in reported coverage. CMS NPPES covers all 8M+ active NPI holders — the broadest federal provider universe available.

Last updated 2026-05-31. See all comparisons at /compare →

READY TO SHIP

Add federal-data citations to your agent in 60 seconds.

Drop our MCP server into Claude Desktop or call the API with pk_dx_sample. No signup. No credit card. Live demo key.

Add Fonteum to your agent →Request pilot access

Built on the authoritative federal record

The primary sources, named on every page.

These are the federal agencies whose public datasets Fonteum ingests and attributes — the issuing authorities, not customers or partners. Every figure on the site links back to one of them.

  • CMS
  • HHS-OIG
  • HRSA
  • FDA
  • NLM
  • NUCC
  • Census
  • BLS
  • BEA

See the full source registry, with license and refresh cadence for each →

Reproducible by design

Every figure traces to its federal source.

14-tuple provenance

Every rendered fact ties to a source URL, dataset ID, snapshot date, row key, and SHA-256 — the full chain-of-custody record.

Reproducible SQL

Each study ships the exact query behind its figures, run against the cited federal snapshot. Re-run it yourself.

Daily count checks

Published counts are checked against the upstream federal datasets on a daily cadence, with drift logged.

Named medical review

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

Read the full provenance and attestation methodology →

Two doors

Use the free API and open data

Query providers, facilities, sanctions, and quality scores — each field carrying its federal source. Self-serve, no call to start.

Explore the API →Browse the data catalog →

Talk to us

Managed pilots, enterprise terms, and audit-ready, signed attestation packages for compliance, risk, and research teams.

Talk to us →
Fonteum
Platform
Platform overviewAPIMCP serverFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAttestation & audit packReconciliationEntity graphSnapshots
Solutions
All solutionsExclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & enrichmentAudit evidenceProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligenceCompliance & riskDevelopers & AI teams
Data & sources
Coverage & sourcesBrowse all datasetsState Medicaid exclusionsFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareSanctionsOwnershipStaffingDeficienciesSpecial Focus Facilities
Federal contracting
OverviewAwards during active exclusionFederal debarment scorecardProcurement questionsContractor lookup8(a) certification guide
Developers
Developer hubDocsAPI referenceQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrationsWebhooks
Research & guides
Research hubGuidesHealthcare provider dataExclusion & sanctions screeningProvider credentialing dataHealthcare data for AIHospital margin gapProvider access gapsGlossaryComparisonsCitationsWhy Fonteum
Company
AboutPressCustomersPricingContactEditorial policyCorrections
Trust & legal
TrustTrust markQualitySecurityPrivacy policyTerms of serviceAPI & MCP termsMedical disclaimer

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

© 2026 Fonteum LLC. All rights reserved.

·hello@fonteum.com

The U.S. healthcare graph AI can cite — every fact carries its source.

Every fact Fonteum serves carries a signed, re-checkable trust mark — source, as-of date, and an Ed25519 signature travel with the data. Re-check any fact at fonteum.com/verify · the trust-mark standard (W3C Verifiable Credentials 2.0, C2PA-aligned).
Request access→

The substrate, by the numbers

9.2Mgraph entitiesProviders, organizations, owners, and facilities
15.7Mlinked identifiersNPIs, CCNs, LEIs and more, resolved to entities
5Mgraph edgesSource-attested relationships between entities
44federal source familiesDistinct CMS, OIG, HRSA, FDA and peer datasets
35dataset pagesCitable, downloadable /data catalog pages
13reproducible studiesEach shipping the SQL behind its figures