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

Healthgrades vs Vitals: Side-by-Side Comparison

Healthgrades and Vitals are both consumer-facing doctor-rating platforms built on patient reviews and self-reported provider profiles. They serve overlapping audiences — patients deciding between doctors — but differ in scale, editorial approach, and how prominently they surface clinical data versus review aggregations.

Dimension by dimension

Healthgrades vs Vitals, across 8 dimensions

DimensionHealthgradesVitals
Data typePatient reviews + self-reported profiles + insurance dataPatient reviews + self-reported profiles
Coverage~3 million+ provider profiles~1 million+ provider profiles
Refresh cadence— (not publicly disclosed)— (not publicly disclosed)
License / CostFree to consumers; B2B and advertising model for providersFree to consumers; B2B and advertising model for providers
API accessNo public APINo public API
Source provenancePatient-submitted reviews; licensing status sourced from state boards — field-level provenance not publicly documentedPatient-submitted reviews; field-level provenance is not publicly documented
Primary use casePatient discovery and doctor selection based on reviews and proximityPatient discovery and doctor selection based on reviews
PricingFree for patients; provider marketing packages — 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 Healthgrades

Healthgrades is the larger platform and indexes more insurance networks, board certifications, and malpractice records alongside patient reviews. Choose Healthgrades when breadth of provider coverage and insurance compatibility filters are the priority.

https://www.healthgrades.com →

When to use Vitals

Vitals is a smaller, review-first platform. Choose Vitals for focused patient-sentiment research on a specific provider when review depth matters more than breadth.

https://www.vitals.com →

FAQ

Common questions

Which platform has more provider listings — Healthgrades or Vitals?
Healthgrades publicly reports coverage exceeding 3 million provider profiles; Vitals is smaller. For sheer breadth of listings and insurance-network filters, Healthgrades leads.
Do Healthgrades or Vitals expose an API for programmatic access?
Neither platform publishes a public REST API. Programmatic access to primary-source federal provider data — NPI, Medicare enrollment, exclusion status — is available through CMS NPPES, PECOS, and OIG LEIE, all of which Fonteum ingests and cross-resolves.
Are the reviews on Healthgrades and Vitals independently attested?
Both platforms collect patient-submitted reviews. Neither publishes a formal attestation methodology or a field-level provenance chain tracing each review to an auditable source. Review sentiment should be treated as self-reported consumer data, not clinically validated quality.
What source backs physician ratings on these platforms?
Ratings on both platforms are aggregated from patient surveys and self-reported provider submissions. The upstream source is consumer-submitted, not a federal primary record. For provenance-grade clinical and enrollment data, CMS NPPES, PECOS, and CMS Care Compare are the primary federal sources.

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