Amazing Charts

Name: Amazing Charts
Brand: Amazing Charts
Rating: 3.6 (106 reviews)

Founded by a physician, Amazing Charts offers affordable and usable solutions for medical practices.

Est 2001|1 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 3K|Web traffic 8K|FTEs 55|HQ West Warwick, Rhode Island, US

MarketsERP

Published Oct 15, 2026

01Common complaints

- Company sizes or stages where this product is overkill or insufficient - Not recommended for large enterprise or multi-hospital systems that require extensive departmental workflows, robust, publicly documented security attestations, and large-scale integration frameworks. - Industries or use cases where competitors are clearly superior - Organizations that require a modern cloud-native ecosystem with broad third-party integrations and minimal incremental integration costs may find competitor platforms more suitable. - Technical requirements that this product cannot meet - No vendor support for Mac-native virtualization/emulation environments; buyers requiring Mac-first deployments should evaluate alternatives. - If procurement requires public SOC 2 / ISO documentation, these were not located in public materials and should be requested if required. - Budget constraints that make alternatives more appropriate - Organizations that need the lowest possible monthly software spend and minimal add-on requirements should compare RXNT and other lower-cost EHR offerings. - Specific workflows or integrations where the product falls short - Practices that depend on many third-party add-ons or extensive integrations and expect those at low incremental cost may find the integration licensing and support model restrictive. - Red flags in the buying process - Observed discrepancies between vendor pricing and third-party review-site pricing suggest buyers should obtain a written, itemized quote and confirm billing units and minimum commitments before contracting. - Vendor-acknowledged limitations - No testing/support for Mac virtualization/emulation environments. - Vendor recommends wired networks for on-prem/hosted usage and documents system requirements. - Roadmap visibility - No clearly published product roadmap was found in the public materials reviewed. - Scale limitations - System requirements indicate different sizing considerations for larger practices (hardware sizing recommendations begin to change above a small number of clinicians), suggesting potential scaling considerations. - Security/compliance gaps - Lack of publicly documented SOC 2 / ISO certifications in accessible materials is a potential procurement gap for security-conscious buyers. - Technical debt and architectural indicators - Multiple user reports of crashes and inconvenient update processes may indicate architectural or operational maturity issues in certain deployments. - API and integration constraints - FHIR API is available, but requires licensing and paid integration assistance; this may limit low-cost integrations by smaller partners.

Deal disqualifiers: what makes a POOR fit

Practices requiring:
- Publicly documented enterprise security attestations (e.g., SOC 2, ISO) as a procurement prerequisite.
- Deep specialty-specific workflows and extensive third-party integrations without investment in custom integrations.
- Very high availability and enterprise-grade uptime guarantees where reported stability concerns would be unacceptable.

02Why they buy

- Competitive advantages described by customers and materials (neutral phrasing) - Deployment flexibility: vendor supports both cloud-hosted and on-premises installations, which some buyers cite as important. - Simplicity for basic workflows: multiple reviewers report the product can be learned quickly for core charting and scheduling tasks. - Unique capabilities relative to competitors - On-prem deployment option compared with several cloud-only small-practice EHR competitors. - Areas where competitors appear to have advantages - Newer platforms may deliver more modern user interfaces, larger third-party integration marketplaces, and more extensively documented enterprise security programs.

03Field reports

- Review sources and summary observations - G2 (sample reviews) - One reviewer characterized pricing as cost-effective for small offices and described the software as straightforward to learn and implement in smaller settings; the same reviewer also reported additional fees for third-party integrations and frequent stability issues. - Other reviewers reported occasional bugs and inconvenience related to software updates. - Capterra (broader set of reviews) - Some reviewers reported slow performance and freezing in virtual/hosted environments and expressed dissatisfaction with support in certain cases. - Reddit / community discussions - Clinicians in forum threads have described Amazing Charts as learnable without formal training in some cases, and as a potential trade-off between cost and features compared with other options. - Gartner Peer Insights / HackerNews - Direct, product-specific listings or substantive discussions were not reliably retrievable during this research session. - Balanced examples (paraphrased for neutral presentation) - Positive sentiment examples: - Several reviewers described the product as easier to learn than some alternatives and reported that scheduling and basic charting meet their workflow needs. - Negative sentiment examples: - Multiple reviewers described performance and stability problems (crashes, freezing, slow response), and some expressed dissatisfaction with support response or feature limitations. - Common criticisms and complaints (support issues, bugs, missing features) - Performance/stability: recurring theme across review platforms: crashes, freezing, and slow performance in some hosted or virtualized setups. - Support quality: mixed reports, with some reviewers noting unsatisfactory support experiences. - Integration/add-on costs: reviewers cited additional fees for third-party integrations and add-ons as a concern. - Feature gap versus newer entrants: some reviewers and community discussions indicated that newer EHRs may offer more modern feature sets. - Why customers chose or left the product - Chosen for: lower headline price relative to some alternatives, perceived ease of learning and basic usability, on-prem deployment option for customers requiring local control. - Left for: perceived lack of advanced functionality, stability issues, and desire for a more modern UX or deeper integrations in some cases. - Specific outcomes reported - Limited quantitative outcomes were available; one user review reported a small self-reported improvement in business performance without a formal methodology. - Customer pain points and deal-breakers - Recurrent pain points: application stability, update disruption, incremental integration fees. - Potential deal-breakers for procurement teams: lack of publicly available enterprise security attestations and reliability concerns in high-throughput clinics.

Case Studies

- Availability of detailed public case studies - Publicly accessible, independently verified case studies with rigorous metrics were not found in the vendor materials reviewed. - Vendor-published vs independently verified metrics - Vendor content and user reviews contain self-reported metrics and comparative claims; these should be treated as vendor- or user-supplied and not independently validated unless the buyer obtains supporting data. - Implementation details and challenges - Public detail on implementation timelines and remediation of challenges is limited. User reviews describe variable experiences with stability and update cadence. - Mixed outcomes - Evidence of mixed outcomes exists in user reviews, including reports of partial abandonment of modules due to stability or feature limitations. - Methodology gaps - No independent ROI studies or standardized before/after measurement methodologies were identified in publicly accessible materials.

04Best fit

Company sizes: specific employee counts and revenue ranges

Likely best fit:
- Solo providers to small and smaller multi-provider practices; may also suit modestly larger practices depending on clinical and technical complexity.
- Administrative headcount typically aligns with small practice staffing models.

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest

Independent outpatient medical practices: family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, dermatology, urgent care, and similar ambulatory specialties.

Roles and personas: decision makers AND end users

Decision makers: practice owners, practice managers, billing managers.
End users: clinicians, medical assistants, front desk staff, billers.

Pain points and challenges the product addresses

Streamline basic charting and scheduling processes, reduce reliance on paper charts, provide lower-cost options for EHR functionality, and offer on-premises deployment where required.

Qualification criteria: what makes a GREAT fit

Practices that:
- Prioritize straightforward charting and scheduling workflows over extensive specialty customization.
- Value the option to host software on-premises or via vendor-hosted/cloud options.
- Are cost-sensitive and willing to accept potential limits in integration flexibility or advanced features.

Real customer examples

Specific named customer references were not consistently available in the public review excerpts used for this research; many user reviews are anonymized as "Verified User" or similar.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

- Amazing Charts is an ambulatory Electronic Health Record (EHR) and practice-management platform targeted at small-to-mid-sized independent medical practices. - Vendor materials describe features for clinical documentation (including a marketed "single-screen" charting workflow), e-prescribing, scheduling, templates, a patient portal, and optional add-ons such as practice management (PM), revenue cycle management (RCM), population health, and patient engagement tools. - The vendor supports both cloud-hosted and locally installed (on-premises) deployments; this deployment flexibility is emphasized in vendor materials compared with some cloud-only competitors.

Target market and market positioning

Primary target: independent practices (solo to small/mid group), outpatient/ambulatory settings.
Market position: positioned for cost-conscious small practices; vendor materials emphasize clinician-oriented workflow design and a layout that resembles traditional paper charts.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Amazing Charts including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →