+1 619 822 1745 [email protected]

Features & Usability

User Comments

Corepoint

  • “The System Monitor, the ability to clone and rename components, and the audit log makes CorePoint a great system to work with.”
  • ”Including all of the gears into the main package would be useful as opposed to add-ons. The action list builder is the best way I have seen to organize and build actions inside an interface.”
  • “This is just a “nice to have” but with the advent of more APIs and point to point integration technology, we’d love to have the ability to monitor and manage those connections like we do the traditional HL7 data flow.”
  • “I’d like to see them add derivative (message template) functionality for x12 similar to what is available for HL7 v2.”

Cloverleaf

  • “It has easy-to-use GUI point and click mapping capabilities for most standard functions. The ability to use TCL code to augment the standard functions is essential and makes this a great interface engine to use. Having a read-to-use template for common interface types would be a handy tool.”
  • “Some things like native version control leave a lot to be desired, but my favorite thing about Cloverleaf is how extendable it is by creating your own scripts or web apps that can run on top of it.”
  • “The engine needs to include better features (on its own, without new modules) to handle web services hosting. Also needs an easier means of troubleshooting web service posts to an outside web service…..its very cryptic.”

Ensemble

  • “The multiple ways of configuring the interfaces made the interfaces easy to build and maintain.”
  • “The only feature I would request with this engine is a more robust debug tool while developing new solutions; testing the DTLs and full end-to-end trace.”
  • “This engine has not been the most intuitive to learn compared to others that I have used. Again though, it has more capability than most too.”

Mirth

  • “The ease of use is creating a generic channel for HL7 interfaces; it doesn’t take much doing to create channels and decide what connectors to use. I couldn’t live without the programming flexibility and the ability to use APIs. I also would add more basic UI drag-and-drop features for resources that can’t code to be able to build an interface.”
  • “The Mirth Connect portion of the product was good, but the appliance fell short of the mark. The engine was and still is in play without the appliance UI.”
  • “Low barrier to entry using Mirth Connect with extensive open community and forum.”
  • “We could not live without the ability to leverage multiple types of connections and the ability to connect to all of our databases from multiple vendors.”

Rhapsody

  • “The graphic user interface makes it easy to use. The testing functionality that is offered on each of the filters is great. There is also good documentation on the Doki. The fact that you can make modifications to the message in different filters and have to go through each one to determine what’s being done to the message makes it difficult.”
  • “Stability – its 100% stable. This makes our on-call a breeze. The alerting is highly configurable so you can control when you get paged.”
  • “The engine has a rich feature set, however, I sometimes feel that some standard filter options should be more straightforward. They can require more design that I would have to put into a regular development environment.”
Compare All Ratings in Survey Summary

0% – incomplete feature set /
not user-friendly
100% – full feature set /
user-friendly

Corepoint

94%

Rhapsody

88%

Ensemble

84%

Mirth

78%

Cloverleaf

Ratings

Meeting Needs Features & Usability Additional Features Implementation Setup Stability & Scalability Support & Services Total Cost of Ownership Vendor Vs. Partner
Overall Rating