MedHub

Name: MedHub
Brand: MedHub

Empowering academic institutions to prepare the next generation of healthcare professionals

Est 2002

LinkedIn 2K|Website|Web traffic 1.4M|FTEs 116|HQ Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- MedHub vs New Innovations: Both are core residency management systems. Older independent coverage suggested New Innovations was the market leader with MedHub holding a smaller share (in 2010). Current market share is unclear from public sources. - MedHub vs E*Value: Multiple institutions explicitly describe switching from E*Value to MedHub due to usability, mobile access, and additional features. - ACGME Case Log coexistence: In some specialties, residents may have to log procedures both in their RMS and in ACGME systems; this can undermine perceived efficiency gains.

Adoption trends

Vendor-stated metrics: The vendor presents figures indicating a large number of training programs and healthcare professionals; these vendor-stated counts were not independently validated in accessible sources during this research pass.
Institutional evidence: MedHub is used at major universities and health systems (examples cited in public-facing materials), supporting the narrative of meaningful adoption.

	MedHub (vendor website)	New Innovations	E*Value (legacy evaluation/RMS referenced by institutions)
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (demo/quote-based)	Not publicly listed	Not publicly listed
Best For	Academic medical centers needing centralized UME+GME oversight, evaluations, logging, reporting	Programs/institutions that prefer NI workflows; widely used and commonly referenced in institutional documents	Institutions still on legacy evaluation workflows; often referenced as being replaced
Key Strength	Evidence of adoption at multiple academic centers; emphasis on implementation and training; integrated oversight across programs	Entrenched adoption; broad familiarity among trainees; established residency management feature set	Familiarity for long-time users; established evaluation workflows
Key Weakness	Public security/compliance documentation not easily found; limited public third-party reviews; evaluation anonymity concerns can be politically sensitive	Community sentiment sometimes notes usability concerns; migration or coexistence with other systems can be common	Being actively replaced at some institutions; may lack modern UX/mobile features compared with newer platforms

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

MedHub vs New Innovations: Both are core residency management systems. Older independent coverage suggested New Innovations was the market leader with MedHub holding a smaller share (in 2010). Current market share is unclear from public sources.
MedHub vs EValue: Multiple institutions explicitly describe switching from EValue to MedHub due to usability, mobile access, and additional features.
ACGME Case Log coexistence: In some specialties, residents may have to log procedures both in their RMS and in ACGME systems; this can undermine perceived efficiency gains.

Adoption trends

Vendor-stated metrics: The vendor presents figures indicating a large number of training programs and healthcare professionals; these vendor-stated counts were not independently validated in accessible sources during this research pass.
Institutional evidence: MedHub is used at major universities and health systems (examples cited in public-facing materials), supporting the narrative of meaningful adoption.

	MedHub (vendor website)	New Innovations	E*Value (legacy evaluation/RMS referenced by institutions)
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (demo/quote-based)	Not publicly listed	Not publicly listed
Best For	Academic medical centers needing centralized UME+GME oversight, evaluations, logging, reporting	Programs/institutions that prefer NI workflows; widely used and commonly referenced in institutional documents	Institutions still on legacy evaluation workflows; often referenced as being replaced
Key Strength	Evidence of adoption at multiple academic centers; emphasis on implementation and training; integrated oversight across programs	Entrenched adoption; broad familiarity among trainees; established residency management feature set	Familiarity for long-time users; established evaluation workflows
Key Weakness	Public security/compliance documentation not easily found; limited public third-party reviews; evaluation anonymity concerns can be politically sensitive	Community sentiment sometimes notes usability concerns; migration or coexistence with other systems can be common	Being actively replaced at some institutions; may lack modern UX/mobile features compared with newer platforms

MedHub

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Adoption trends

02Market Map

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Adoption trends

02Market Map