Heidi vs Lyrebird vs MedMETs: an honest 3-way comparison from someone who's used all three

Australia has three serious AI scribe options in 2026: Heidi, Lyrebird, and MedMETs. I've used all three in clinic for at least a month each. Most online comparisons of these tools are written by vendors. This one isn't.

Heidi

Strengths: brand maturity, polished UI, broadest EHR integration, fastest to adopt for a first-time AI-scribe user. Weakest area: it's a standalone scribe — beyond the note, it doesn't connect to the rest of the consult workflow.

Pick Heidi when: you want the cleanest possible scribe with no learning curve and you have other tools handling care plans, screening, and patient engagement.

Lyrebird Health

Strengths: best-in-class transcription, particularly on accented speech. Excellent for multilingual or refugee-heavy patient populations. Weakest area: workflow integration is thinner than Heidi or MedMETs — the note exists, but it doesn't push downstream automatically.

Pick Lyrebird when: your patient cohort includes a lot of accented English speakers and voice quality is your priority over downstream workflow.

MedMETs

Strengths: integrated platform — scribe + care plans + screening + patient app + sync + billing flags. The scribe is one input into a larger system. Newer to market than the others. Weakest area: brand familiarity. Your patients haven't heard of it; your colleagues might not have either.

Pick MedMETs when: you want the AI scribe to be the entry point to a broader chronic-disease and screening workflow, not the whole product.

How to decide

Run a 2-week trial with each. Measure three things: time-to-sign-off per consult, total claimable revenue captured per consult (the billing flag matters more than people realise), and patient feedback on the experience. Most clinics are surprised by what they find.