Amion vs QGenda: An Honest Pricing and Feature Comparison

If you've been asked to pick between Amion and QGenda, you've probably already noticed the two companies barely compete on the same terms. One publishes a price on its website; the other makes you sit through a sales call before you learn what a module costs. This is a straight comparison of what each platform actually does, what it costs, and where real users say it falls short - drawn from each vendor's own pricing pages and from independent reviews on Capterra and G2, not marketing copy.

The short version

Amion is a flat-fee scheduling tool built for groups that want a fast, self-serve setup: pick a plan, pay a set annual price, and start building. QGenda is a much bigger enterprise suite - scheduling plus credentialing plus time and attendance - aimed at health systems that need one platform to run workforce operations across dozens of departments, sold through a custom quote and an implementation process that can run for months. Neither is a scaled-down version of the other; they're built for different-sized problems.

Pricing: published flat fee vs custom quote

This is the single biggest practical difference, and it's worth putting the numbers side by side before anything else.

Amion's $399-a-year figure, unlimited users, comes straight from its own pricing page and covers Pro and Residency tiers; Enterprise is the one exception that still requires a sales conversation. QGenda has never published a price publicly on qgenda.com. The $500-$1,000-per-provider-per-month range comes from a third-party pricing analysis site, not QGenda itself, so treat it as a rough planning number rather than a quote you can hold anyone to. For a 20-provider group, that range implies something like $120,000-$240,000 a year against Amion's flat $399 - a gap wide enough that the two products are really answering different budget questions, not competing for the same line item.

What each product actually covers

Amion is squarely a scheduling and communication tool: automated schedule building against custom rules and templates, shift trading, secure messaging, a mobile app, and integrations with EHRs, GME systems, and clinical messaging platforms like TigerConnect. It's now operated under Doximity Hospital Solutions, which brings distribution and integration reach but also means the roadmap sits inside a larger company's priorities rather than an independent one.

QGenda, sold as "ProviderCloud," is a wider workforce management suite: scheduling sits alongside credentialing, time and attendance, and workforce analytics, aimed at hospitals and academic medical centers that want one vendor covering several HR-adjacent functions at once. That breadth is real, and reviewers do credit the rules-based generation engine with cutting schedule-build time. It's also why the sale looks like an enterprise software deal rather than a subscription: multiple modules, multiple stakeholders, multiple meetings before anyone sees a live schedule.

I love the organization of the program and being able to customize what the provider and the users see.

Where each one draws real complaints

Capterra and G2 reviews converge on a few specific, repeatable problems for each platform, not vague dissatisfaction.

• Amion: at least one reviewer flagged difficulty using the app on a phone, and the self-serve order page shows tier names without prices next to them, so you still have to click through to a separate pricing page to see the number.
• QGenda: users report a setup process that runs through multiple meetings and heavy customization before go-live, a mobile app that reviewers say crashes despite being needed for daily use, and some reviewers feeling the price doesn't match the value once it's running.

Neither complaint is disqualifying on its own, but they point at the same underlying trade-off: Amion is fast to start and light on structure; QGenda is heavier to stand up in exchange for a broader feature set once it's live.

Who actually fits each one

A single-specialty group, a residency program, or a hospitalist service that mainly needs a fair, rules-based call schedule with trading and messaging is closer to Amion's use case - the price is public, the setup is self-serve, and you're not paying for credentialing or time-and-attendance modules you won't use. A large health system running scheduling across a dozen departments alongside credentialing and time tracking, with a procurement team already set up for enterprise software contracts, is closer to what QGenda is built for.

The uncomfortable middle ground is the mid-sized group: too big to want a bare-bones tool, too small to justify a six-figure enterprise quote for modules it won't touch. That's the gap a flat, honestly priced scheduling tool with strong fairness math and duty-hour checks - without the credentialing and time-and-attendance modules bolted on - is built to fill.

The broader pressure both vendors are riding

Scheduling software isn't growing because it's a nice-to-have. The physician scheduling systems market was valued at roughly $557 million in 2025 and is projected to more than double by 2032, and the pressure behind that growth is blunt: the American Medical Association's 2025 survey found 43.2% of US physicians reporting at least one burnout symptom, and separate analysis puts the cost of physician burnout to US health systems at around $4.6 billion a year, mostly from turnover and reduced hours. Roughly 45% of physicians cite after-hours workload specifically as a contributor. Whichever platform a group picks, the reason they're picking one at all is that manual, spreadsheet-driven call schedules stopped scaling with those numbers a while ago.

A short checklist before you commit to either

1. Get the real number in writing. Amion's price is public; get QGenda's actual quote for your provider count before comparing anything else, since third-party estimates can be off by a wide margin in either direction.
2. Ask what's actually included. Confirm whether credentialing and time-and-attendance are things you need this year or modules you'd be paying for and not using.
3. Check the mobile experience yourself. Both platforms have documented mobile complaints in reviews; a five-minute test on your own phone during a trial or demo tells you more than any review quote.
4. Time the implementation. Ask for a real go-live date, not a range, and ask what happens to your current schedule while the new system is being configured.
5. Run your actual rules through it. A demo schedule built on someone else's rules tells you nothing; bring your real rotation constraints and duty-hour rules to the demo or trial.

Common questions

Is Amion cheaper than QGenda?

On list price, yes, by a wide margin: Amion publishes $399/year flat for unlimited users on its Pro and Residency tiers. QGenda doesn't publish pricing at all; third-party estimates (not confirmed by QGenda) put it around $500-$1,000 per provider per month, which for most groups works out far higher than Amion's flat fee. The two aren't really priced for the same buyer, though - QGenda's quote covers a much wider module set.

Does QGenda do more than Amion?

In terms of scope, yes. QGenda bundles scheduling with credentialing, time and attendance, and workforce analytics under one platform. Amion is focused on scheduling, trading, messaging, and mobile access. Whether the extra scope is worth it depends entirely on whether your organization needs those adjacent modules or would be paying for ones it won't use.

Which one is easier to set up?

Amion is built for self-serve signup on its Pro and Residency tiers, with online checkout and no mandatory sales call. QGenda's enterprise sales model requires a custom quote and, per user reviews, multiple meetings and significant customization before go-live - a heavier process, but one that's arguably necessary given how much more the platform does once it's running.

Are there good alternatives to both?

Yes - the market has moved beyond "pick the enterprise suite or the legacy flat-fee tool." Newer entrants publish pricing up front, offer a genuine free tier, and focus specifically on fair rotation math and duty-hour compliance rather than bundling in adjacent HR modules.