MindFi

Name: MindFi
Brand: MindFi
Rating: 4 (1 reviews)

We're making corporate wellbeing culturally-relevant, inclusive, and accessible for all. Check out our latest posts 😉

Est 2017|Valuation $290K|Raised $3.2M

LinkedIn 13K|Web traffic 15K|FTEs 50|HQ Singapore, SG

MarketsBenefits Administration

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where MindFi may be suitable: - Packaging targeted at small and mid-market employers. - Vendor lists multi-country coverage and multi-language app support. - The MindFi Hub/Analytics documentation suggests an admin layer with participation and usage metrics. Where competitors may be stronger: - Broader independent validation and public visibility for some competitors. - Larger incumbents may provide more standardized enterprise security artifacts (SOC 2 Type II, DPAs, SSO/SCIM documentation). - Competitors with larger public footprints may have more peer references. Pricing comparison reality: - Traditional EAPs (ComPsych, Health Advocate, TELUS Health, etc.) are sometimes priced at relatively low per-employee rates in certain bids. - Utilization-based therapy components can be either helpful (pay-for-use) or a budgeting risk depending on adoption levels.

	MindFi	Spring Health	Lyra Health
Starting Price	Not public; vendor describes pricing as a fixed platform fee plus variable therapy utilization (custom quote required)	Not public (custom)	Not public (custom); some RFP examples show per-employee pricing examples for specific contexts
Primary market	SMB / mid-market employers seeking a combined self-care and EAP offering with analytics; multi-country coverage described by vendor	Mid-market/enterprise employers seeking fast appointment access and care navigation	Larger employers seeking clinically managed networks and published outcome/ROI materials
Key documented capabilities	Admin Hub with anonymized analytics; self-care content; provider network for therapy/coaching	Vendor-marketed fast appointment access; provider network	Enterprise-focused features and published vendor materials on outcomes in specific engagements
Key limitations noted	Limited independent B2B reviews; vendor-hosting in Singapore may be a blocker for some buyers; vendor-held SOC 2 Type II not clearly documented publicly	Requires due diligence on plan specifics and pricing	Can be higher cost in some procurements versus traditional EAPs

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where MindFi may be suitable:

Packaging targeted at small and mid-market employers.
Vendor lists multi-country coverage and multi-language app support.
The MindFi Hub/Analytics documentation suggests an admin layer with participation and usage metrics.

Where competitors may be stronger:

Broader independent validation and public visibility for some competitors.
Larger incumbents may provide more standardized enterprise security artifacts (SOC 2 Type II, DPAs, SSO/SCIM documentation).
Competitors with larger public footprints may have more peer references.

Pricing comparison reality:

Traditional EAPs (ComPsych, Health Advocate, TELUS Health, etc.) are sometimes priced at relatively low per-employee rates in certain bids.
Utilization-based therapy components can be either helpful (pay-for-use) or a budgeting risk depending on adoption levels.

	MindFi	Spring Health	Lyra Health
Starting Price	Not public; vendor describes pricing as a fixed platform fee plus variable therapy utilization (custom quote required)	Not public (custom)	Not public (custom); some RFP examples show per-employee pricing examples for specific contexts
Primary market	SMB / mid-market employers seeking a combined self-care and EAP offering with analytics; multi-country coverage described by vendor	Mid-market/enterprise employers seeking fast appointment access and care navigation	Larger employers seeking clinically managed networks and published outcome/ROI materials
Key documented capabilities	Admin Hub with anonymized analytics; self-care content; provider network for therapy/coaching	Vendor-marketed fast appointment access; provider network	Enterprise-focused features and published vendor materials on outcomes in specific engagements
Key limitations noted	Limited independent B2B reviews; vendor-hosting in Singapore may be a blocker for some buyers; vendor-held SOC 2 Type II not clearly documented publicly	Requires due diligence on plan specifics and pricing	Can be higher cost in some procurements versus traditional EAPs