Kimi WebBridge vs Last EHR

Kimi WebBridge 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.

Kimi WebBridge

The platform handles long-horizon coding tasks, parallel document research, and full-stack web generation through a coordinated swarm architecture — the vendor states K2.6 scales to 300 sub-agents running concurrently. The model weights are open-source under a Modified MIT license, so teams with strict data governance can run inference locally rather than routing sensitive payloads to a cloud endpoint. Where the friction surfaces is at the edges: the scraped interface shows a broad surface — Slides, Websites, Docs, Deep Research, Sheets, Agent Swarm, Kimi Code, Kimi Claw — and integrating any of those outputs into an existing CI/CD pipeline requires API work the UI does not abstract. Teams building beyond Kimi's native surfaces reach for the API fast.

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	Kimi WebBridge	Last EHR
Pricing	Paid	Free
Price	$19-199/month for subscriptions; $0.95/$4.00 per M tokens for API	—
Free trial	No	No
Open source	No	Yes
Has API	Yes	Yes
Self-hosted option	Yes	Yes
Platforms	Web (kimi.com), iOS/Android app, CLI (Kimi Code), API (OpenAI-compatible), local (vLLM/SGLang/KTransformers)	Web, self-hosted
Released	2026-04-20	—
Pros	Agent Swarm scales to 300 concurrent sub-agents for parallel task execution, so batch workflows that would serialize and stall on a single-agent platform finish in a fraction of the wall-clock time. K2.6 model weights are open-source under Modified MIT license, which means teams blocked by cloud data-routing policies can deploy locally without waiting for a vendor's private-cloud SKU. Provider-native vision and coding surfaces (Kimi Code, full-stack web generation) handle UI/UX generation from descriptions or screenshots, so prototypes that would normally require a separate design-to-code pipeline can be produced in one session. API access exposes the underlying model for programmatic use, so teams building their own agent orchestration can call K2.6 directly rather than wrapping a closed model they cannot inspect or self-host. Freemium access to the chat and base agent tier lets teams validate the model's output quality on real tasks before committing API budget — avoiding the demo-to-invoice surprise common on credit-card-required platforms.	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	Agent Swarm's parallel execution lives on the cloud platform; teams that self-host K2.6 weights get the model but not the swarm infrastructure, so local deployments are limited to single-agent or custom-orchestrated workflows — at which point teams are building orchestration themselves rather than using Kimi's. The native output surfaces (Slides, Sheets, Websites, Deep Research) do not expose direct connectors to third-party systems, so any team needing Kimi's outputs to land in an existing CMS, project tracker, or data warehouse must build and maintain an API integration layer — adding a second system to own. Teams requiring auditable, step-level observability into what each sub-agent executed — a compliance requirement in regulated industries — find that the current platform surface does not expose granular agent logs, which is the condition under which those teams move to an open orchestration framework like LangGraph or CrewAI where they control the trace.	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

Kimi WebBridge 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 Kimi WebBridge and Last EHR?

Kimi WebBridge 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 Kimi WebBridge 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.