Adapt vs Last EHR

Adapt and Last EHR are both ai agent apps tracked by AIDiveForge. Below is a side-by-side comparison of pricing, capabilities, platforms, and ownership — sourced from each tool's live website and verified before publishing.

Adapt

The vendor describes Adapt as an autonomous business intelligence agent that connects to disconnected data sources, routes queries to optimal models, and surfaces answers directly in Slack — without requiring SQL or dashboard-building skills. For executive briefings and churn monitoring, the no-code workflow layer handles the repetitive retrieval work so analysts are not the bottleneck. The credit-based free tier lets teams validate integrations before committing. The scraped page content provided does not match the tool — it describes a travel identification app called Spotter — so specific integration names, connector counts, and workflow depth cannot be verified from the source material and are omitted here.

Last EHR

The tool wraps four FHIR operations — patient search, chart read, note creation, and observation recording — into a chat agent that runs as the signed-in user, bounded by whatever Medplum AccessPolicy you already have. Every write surfaces as an approval card showing exactly what will be saved before it touches the chart. The same four tools expose as an MCP server for Claude Desktop or Claude Code, read-only by default. The ceiling is visible early: four tools, one backend, one EHR platform. Teams that need more than that are writing their own.

Attribute	Adapt	Last EHR
Pricing	Paid	Free
Free trial	No	No
Open source	No	Yes
Has API	Yes	Yes
Self-hosted option	No	Yes
Platforms	Slack, Web App	Web, self-hosted
Pros	Autonomous cross-system data retrieval, so a director can ask a churn question in Slack and get an answer without queuing an analyst request — eliminating the 24–48 hour turnaround that makes weekly reviews stale by the time they land. No-code workflow automation for recurring tasks like daily briefings and ARR monitoring, which means the ops or RevOps lead can own these workflows without pulling engineering into every change. Slack-native delivery, so insights surface in the channel where decisions are already being made rather than requiring a context switch to another BI tool that leadership checks once a quarter. Model routing that selects the optimal LLM per query type, so you are not paying GPT-4 rates for a simple metric lookup or getting weak results on a complex attribution question because the model was set globally. Credit-based free tier with no credit card required, so a team can connect real data sources and run actual workflows before making a budget commitment — reducing the risk of buying a demo that breaks on production data.	Approval-gated writes — the agent proposes, you confirm, nothing saves silently — so you can prototype AI chart edits without a runaway write reaching a patient record. Runs as the signed-in Medplum user scoped by your existing AccessPolicy, which means you get access control for free instead of rebuilding it in the agent layer. Stores no patient data of its own, so there is no second compliance surface to audit or secure beyond what Medplum already covers. Provider-agnostic model key (OpenAI or Anthropic), so switching models is a single environment variable change rather than a code change when costs or output quality shift. MCP server mode exposes the same four tools to Claude Desktop or Claude Code read-only by default, so teams can wire AI chart access into existing developer tooling without building a separate integration.
Cons	No self-hosted deployment option means any team operating under data residency mandates, SOC 2 audit requirements, or internal policies against third-party cloud access to production data cannot use Adapt without a policy exception — and teams in that position typically move to a self-hostable alternative rather than negotiate exceptions for every data source. The no-code workflow layer works for linear retrieval tasks, but multi-step workflows with branching logic — for example, 'if churn score exceeds threshold, pull support ticket history, then cross-reference contract renewal date, then route to the right CSM' — push past what visual no-code builders handle cleanly; teams building that level of conditional logic typically end up adding a code layer alongside Adapt, which means two systems to maintain. Connector coverage is not disclosed publicly, so teams with niche or internally built data sources have no way to verify compatibility before signing up — the free credits test period becomes mandatory validation rather than optional exploration, and an unsupported source means a stalled rollout.	The agent covers exactly four FHIR tools. Any clinical workflow that requires a fifth operation — scheduling, prior auth, document retrieval — hits a hard stop, and teams extend by forking the codebase, at which point they are maintaining their own agent layer. Medplum is the only supported FHIR backend. Teams running Azure Health Data Services, Google Cloud Healthcare API, or a self-hosted HAPI instance cannot use this without replacing the backend integration entirely — at which point they are evaluating tools built for backend-agnostic FHIR. A managed tier with BAA coverage is listed as in development and not yet available. Teams under HIPAA that cannot self-host and sign their own BAA with Medplum have no production-ready path here, and will move to a vendor with signed agreements in place.

Bottom line

Adapt is paid while Last EHR is free; Last EHR is open source. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Adapt and Last EHR?

Adapt is Paid, while Last EHR is Free and open source. Compare pricing, free trial, API, platforms, and pros/cons in the table above on AIDiveForge.

Is Adapt better than Last EHR?

It depends on your workflow. Use the side-by-side attributes (pricing, open source, API, self-hosted, platforms) to decide. AIDiveForge does not rank a universal winner — we publish verified facts so you can choose.

Adapt vs Last EHR: which should I pick?

Pick Adapt if its pricing model, openness, or platform fit matches your constraints; pick Last EHR otherwise. Check free-trial availability on each listing if you want to test before committing.

Comparison data is sourced and verified by the AIDiveForge data pipeline. AIDiveForge is editorially independent.